Lexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley.fulltext.all.rss
The Dad-ification of Language Shows That Masculinity Is Still Evolvinghttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/12/02/dads_are_changing_the_way_we_talk_and_how_we_think_about_masculinity.html
<p>Media outlets <a href="https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=news:+dad+jokes+obama+thanksgiving&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=cr&amp;ei=C089WPaaAqaTgAa_86nYAw">groaned at</a> the “dad jokes” President Obama cracked at his final turkey pardon this Thanksgiving. In the runup to the election, <em>BuzzFeed </em><a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/gabrielsanchez/tim-kaine-is-dad-af?utm_term=.tcAR7v2yqD%23.lyxmbNx87W">fawned over</a> “how dad” vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine was. And as Hello Giggles <a href="http://hellogiggles.com/president-obama-bill-clinton-dads/">giggled over</a> the incident: “President Obama yelling at Bill Clinton to hurry up is the most dad thing that ever dadded.” We, or at least nostalgic Democrats, are having a major <em>dad</em> moment right now—and it might not just be signaling a change in our language, but also a change in our ideas about masculinity.</p>
<p>The <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> dates “dad jokes” to 1987, citing a <a href="http://gettysburg.newspaperarchive.com/gettysburg-times/1987-06-20/page-5/pageno-562685?tag=dad+jokes&amp;rtserp=tags/dad-jokes?ndt=by&amp;py=1987&amp;pey=1987">defense</a> of the wince-inducing wit in a <em>Gettysburg Times </em>op-ed. The <em>OED </em>also finds “uncoordinated dad-dancing” in a 1996 Scottish Sunday paper. But <em>dad </em>has been proliferating in mainstream slang recently. Last year, we <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/04/30/what_is_the_dad_bod_america_s_leading_expert_explains.html">pedestaled</a> the “dad bod.” This year, we <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathleenkusek/2016/06/17/steph-currys-dad-shoes-might-be-genius/%23dde1cd1b10c3">bought up</a> Steph Curry’s “dad shoes,” plain white sneakers that seem more at home mowing the lawn than driving the line. Men air-guitar a solo on their favorite “<a href="http://pitchfork.com/news/66111-watch-pitchforktvs-brief-history-of-dad-rock/">dadrock</a>” hit or let their paunches hang out, arms akimbo, when assuming the “<a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/christopherguerrero/if-you-relate-to-this-video-you-might-have-early-onset-dads?utm_term=.pm66nqkRjV%23.baDvNR5ykj">dad stance</a>.” Loose-fitting “<a href="http://www.gq.com/gallery/dad-jeans-celebrities-style">dad jeans</a>” and beat-up “dad caps” are must-haves to pull off the fashionably uncool “<a href="http://www.apple.com">dad style</a>,” a trend some are dubbing “<a href="http://www.glamour.com/story/what-is-dadcore">dadcore.</a>”</p>
<p><em>BuzzFeed </em>has been further expanding the linguistic possibilities of <em>dad</em>. One <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/gabrielsanchez/tim-kaine-is-dad-af?utm_term=.tcAR7v2yqD%23.lyxmbNx87W">listicle</a>, “17 Pictures That Show Just How Dad Time Kaine Is,” features the politician unabashedly grinning as he eats brunch, plays harmonica, and performs public duties with a contagious excitement. As the piece concludes: “It’s possible that Tim Kaine could be the most dad VP in American history.” (<strong><em>Slate</em> </strong>would agree, if Kaine’s “<a href="https://twitter.com/Slate/status/796101275599458304">dad gestures</a>” are any measure). <em>BuzzFeed </em>has previously employed <em>dad </em>in this way. A 2015 <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/sophiegadd/how-dad-are-you-actually?utm_term=.sm863nXOJA%23.koK16zLnyR">quiz</a>, for instance, asked “How Dad Are You Actually?” and invited readers to tick off a long list of stereotypic dadlike behaviors ranging from “Got to the airport five hours early” to “Talked about which road to use to get to a place.” Respondents then learned whether they were “not very dad” or “extremely dad.”</p>
<p>Elsewhere, <em>dad</em> has become an action. New Zealander and new father Jordan Watson <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/parenting/baby/80573524/How-To-Dad-creator-Jordan-Watson-shares-parenting-tricks">created</a> a popular YouTube series called “How to Dad” to help his fellow clueless paterfamilias. The Funny Beaver website touted Tactical Baby Gear’s dude-friendly products as “<a href="http://thefunnybeaver.com/tactical-baby-gear-review/">How to Dad Like a Boss</a>.” And on social media, fathers have been <a href="https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%23dadding&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=cr&amp;ei=6Fc9WNX3K-fOgAaAsbT4Bg">proudly hashtagging</a> their parenting with #dadding since at least <a href="https://twitter.com/MisterMcLaren/status/11503917904">2010</a>.</p>
<p>As lexicographers Emily Brewster and Ben Zimmer have <a href="https://twitter.com/eabrewster/status/783697212853325828">observed</a>, <em>dad </em>is undergoing a functional shift, or a change in its grammatical role. The informal <em>dad</em> begins as a baby’s-first-word noun, but the compound <em>dad joke </em>deploys it as a modifier, called an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct">attributive noun</a>, while the expression <em>Tim Kaine could be the most dad</em> transforms the word into a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicative_expression%23Predicative_vs._attributive_adjectives">predicate adjective</a>. <em>To dad</em> and <em>be</em> <em>dadding</em>, of course, turn <em>dad</em> into a verb. Grammar peevers often resist such shifts; consider the perennial <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/yes-impact-is-a-verb">handwringing</a> over <em>impact</em> as a verb. But the English language thrives on repurposing its stock. <em>Father</em>, as an apt example<em>,</em> has been a verb since at least the early 1400s, while Shakespeare’s Duke of York famously <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=richard2&amp;Act=2&amp;Scene=3&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1244%231244">quipped</a> “uncle me no uncle” in <em>Richard II</em>. <em>Dad</em> is a novel instance of an age-old pattern.&nbsp; </p>
<p>But driving these linguistic shifts may be a broader cultural shift in the construction of masculinity. <em>Dad</em> doesn’t simply mean <em>dad</em>. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%2523dadding&amp;src=typd&amp;lang=en&amp;lang=en">#Dadding</a> status updates typically look to a more active and equal model of parenting. The hashtag can punctuate a successful diaper-change as a Herculean feat, embracing the messy mundanity of parenthood as it self-deprecates male incompetence—and begins, ever so slowly, to acknowledge a deep and overdue debt to mothers.</p>
<p>What’s more, the expanded uses of <em>dad </em>are not limited to dads as such. A nondad can sport <em>dad jeans</em> just as a nonmom might <em>mom jeans</em>, and, as lexicographer Jane Solomon has <a href="https://www.lexicalitems.com/2016/02/05/slang-mom-dad-grandma-grandpa/">noted</a> of internet slang, we’re even addressing male figures we admire as <em>dad</em> in a form of <a href="https://www.academia.edu/26094521/_Among_the_New_Words_American_Speech_Vol._91_No._1_pp._81-99_">fictive kinship</a>. These <em>dad</em>s celebrate a certain kind of male character. Dad jokes are cheesy and embarrassing, but endearingly so. Dad clothes are comfort-forward, not fashion-forward, but it’s hard to fault a man who owns his inner schlub. And the honesty and imperfection of the dad bod, moreover, are precisely why many find it attractive. <em>Dad </em>locates a positive, authentic maleness in the foibles and flab we associate with fathers and maps them onto the aging Average Joe. And being <em>dad</em> represents a frustrating but lovably dorky way of being in the world.</p>
<p><em>Dad</em>, then,<em> </em>offers a refreshing alternative to modes of masculinity that have hogged our language in recent years. <em>Bromance</em>, <em>brogrammer</em>, and other <em>bro</em>- portmanteaus chest-bump with a fratty, six-packed, bong-ripping immaturity. <em>Mansplaining</em>, <em>manspreading</em>, and <em>man-</em> blends call out an arrogant and aggressive paternalism. But <em>dad</em>? It’s simple, practical, corny, and ultimately well-meaning. Just like, well, dads.</p>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 14:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/12/02/dads_are_changing_the_way_we_talk_and_how_we_think_about_masculinity.htmlJohn Kelly2016-12-02T14:00:00ZLifeThe Dad-ification of Language Shows That Masculinity Is Still Evolving241161202001languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/12/02/dads_are_changing_the_way_we_talk_and_how_we_think_about_masculinity.htmlfalsefalsefalseOn the dad-ification of language.Dads everywhere be dadding.Win McNamee/Getty ImagesTim Kaine debuted as America's dad at the vice presidential debate.I Went Looking For “The Good Ol’ Days.” It Took Me Back 5,000 Years.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/30/nostalgia_narratives_and_the_history_of_the_good_ol_days_we_ve_lamented.html
<p><em>This essay is adapted from the </em><a href="http://www.pessimists.co/"><em>Pessimists Archive podcast</em></a><em>, a show about technology and the history of unfounded fears. Subscribe </em><a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pessimists-archive-podcast/id1104682320?mt=2"><em>on iTunes</em></a><em>, or listen to the </em><a href="http://soundcloud.com/pessimistsarc/the-good-old-days"><em>full audio version</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>Why Donald Trump won will be debated for generations, but we can all agree on one thing: Nostalgia is powerful. Just consider the elegance of “again” in “Make America Great Again.” It says that today’s changes ruined a glorious yesterday—that a golden age is ours to reclaim. “People want to believe that they are part of the greatest nation, that redemption is around the corner, that a perfect nation in which no suffering happens is possible,” says Alan Levinovitz, an assistant professor of religion at James Madison University. He calls tales like these “nostalgia narratives,” and says their appeal is their simplicity. “They identify clear villains in the causing of suffering,” he explains—which makes them the favored argument of demagogues.</p>
<p>But nostalgia narratives contain a fatal flaw: They harken back to real times. Real times full of records and histories. Real times that can be cross-referenced against the “golden age” story being told about them. So I began wondering what would happen if I did the fact-checking—looking into each generation’s tale of better bygone times, to see if anyone, at any time, really felt they were getting it right.</p>
<p>I started making calls. It took me back 5,000 years.</p>
<p>First, today. During the campaign, the Daily Show <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVQvWwHM5kM">sent a bunch of correspondents</a> to a Trump rally to ask when America was last great. One guy said the 1980s. Another said 1913, when we passed the 17th Amendment. (Correspondent: “So, back when women couldn’t vote?”) And then, of course, someone said the 1950s—the most popular answer. <a href="http://www.prri.org/research/divide-americas-future-1950-2050/">A recent survey</a> by the nonprofit organization PRRI found that 51% of Americans believe our way of life is worse than it was in the 1950s.</p>
<p>But did the people of post-war America believe <em>they</em> were living in a golden age? No, says Doug McAdam, a professor of sociology and political science at Stanford University, and author of <em>Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Post-War America</em>. Despite our current romanticizing of that time, tensions were high—about race, class, the threat of nuclear war, a political system that Americans felt had failed them, and a culture sapped of energy. “People talked about how mindless the students on college campus were, only tracking towards a conformist, consumer-oriented way of life, without soul,” says McAdam. “So there was a lot of commentary on the deadening conformity.”</p>
<p>McAdam says that many people in post-war America pointed to the ’20s as a better time. But the newspapers of the 20s reflect a culture full of anxiety and nostalgia. Radio, recorded music, and the automobile were reshaping American life, causing people to fear that our fundamental humanness was under attack. This 1923 New York Times headline sums it up nicely: <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D05E4DC1530E333A25752C2A9669D946295D6CF">‘AMERICAN LIFE IS TOO FAST’</a>. The story goes on to quote then-Secretary of State Charles Evan Hughes, who spoke for a generation of intellectuals when he said, “It is the day of the fleeting vision. Concentration, thoroughness, the quiet reflection that ripens judgment are more difficult than ever.” Two years later, the<strong> </strong>dean of Princeton University would declare that “The general effect of the automobile was to make the present generation look lightly at the moral code, and to decrease the value of the home.”</p>
<p>Certainly, those aren’t the words of people living in a golden age. So where to next? The characters in Downton Abbey, who lived in the 20s, all sat around wistfully recalling the late 1800s. It was a time of progress in America as in England: We’d built the transcontinental railroad, the frontier was conquered, and cities were booming. But there was also a fast-spreading disease—something frightening called neurasthenia. An abbreviated list of symptoms: chronic headaches, insomnia, constipation, chronic diarrhea, impotence, amenorrhea, low spirits, constant anxiety, and chronic back pain. “Basically any type of condition that made life somewhat unpleasant was attributed to neurasthenia,” says David G. Schuster, author of a book called <em>Neurasthenic Nation</em>.</p>
<p>At the turn of the century, people believed that “nervous energy” kept us physically and mentally vibrant.<strong> </strong>But as life became busier, faster, and noisier,<strong> </strong>there was a pervasive fear that all our newly busy lives sapped our nervous energy. And when this happened, the thinking went, we got sick.<strong> </strong>“I think some people might have identified as neurasthenic because they were unhappy with some aspect of their life,” Schuster says. “Neurasthenia gave them a word to describe that: It’s not necessarily their fault, but they are a feather floating on larger breezes of modernity.”</p>
<p>Which is to say, neurasthenia was a nostalgia narrative transformed into a disease.</p>
<p>The people of the late 1800s wanted to return to purer, quieter times, so Schuster says they romanticized the decades before the civil war. But according to Harry L. Watson, a professor of history at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, the people of antebellum America were busily debating their fallen nation. A common complaint went like this: “The republic that the framers had created in the 1770s and 80s and 90s had decayed,” says Watson, “and somehow we'd strayed away from the will of the founders, and we ought to get back to it.” Today, of course, that’s a Tea Party rallying cry. But when Andrew Jackson led this charge, some of the founding fathers were actually still alive—and refuting it. James Madison essentially said, “I <em>am</em> a founding father, and you’re wrong about what I meant.” It didn’t work. But even back then, Watson says, facts took a backseat to what <em>felt</em> true.</p>
<p>So, antebellum America romanticized revolutionary America. And who were the revolutionaries romanticizing? “Jefferson would talk about the ancient Saxon constitution of England as being far superior to anything that existed in his lifetime,” Watson says, “and bemoan that we couldn't seem to get back there. Benjamin Franklin said similar things.”</p>
<p>This is a hefty temporal jump: The Anglo Saxons inhabited Great Britain from roughly the years 500 to 1066. And though they may have written a hell of a constitution, the Vikings gave them little time to celebrate it. “You're living in this world in which these brutal pagan invaders are constantly destroying your crops, killing your family, wrecking the religious institutions that define your life,” says Andrew Rabin, a professor of English at the University of Louisville, “and so there is this strong nostalgia for an age before the Vikings came.”</p>
<p>Nostalgia, in fact, was central to the Anglo Saxon worldview. Their poems often contained what’s called an “ubi sunt” passage, which is when the narrator would start talking about how to Make The 10<sup>th</sup> Century Great Again. The poem “The Wanderer” contains a nice one, translated by Rabin from Old English: <em>Where has the horse gone? Where is the rider? Where is the giver of gold? Where are the seats of the feast? Where are the joys of the hall? Alas for the bright cup, alas for the mailed warrior, alas for the splendor of the prince.</em></p>
<p>These poems don’t refer to a specific golden age, and we don’t know much about the Anglo Saxons before the Vikings arrived. But the Renaissance thinkers, who would come along four centuries later, romanticized the ancient Romans. And the Romans romanticized, well, earlier Romans.</p>
<p>The Roman historian Tacitus captures the mood. He records the empire from its beginning, in 509 B.C. (which he says was full of glorious heroes) to his time in about 100 B.C. (which he keeps apologizing for). “He's constantly saying, ‘I'm sorry for telling you about yet more murders that the autocratic emperors have committed against their own subjects, and more rapes, and more sexual perversion, and more records of excessive dining, eating, and, you know, sumptuary practices,’” says Alex Dressler, an assistant professor of classics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But Romans before Tacitus said basically the same thing, Dressler says. The more money and power the Romans acquired, the more they felt like their nation was getting indulgent and lazy, and therefore the more they looked backwards to a time <em>before</em> they got what they wanted. The wanting, it seems, mattered more than the having.</p>
<p>So let’s just skip to the beginning—to Mesopotamia, when humanity began writing for the first time. Eckart Frahm, a professor of Assyriology at Yale University, says a curious trend shows up in the old cuneiform tablets: At the beginning of writing, around 3500 B.C., nobody pens anything nostalgic. But after about two centuries, as records pile up and scholars read what their ancestors wrote,<strong> </strong>that changes. “Then,” he says, “there is this idea that there must have been an age where things were really perfect.”</p>
<p>There it is. As soon as we started telling our own story, we became seduced by it.</p>
<p>Of course, this can’t come as much of a surprise. Nostalgia seems hardwired, as human as fear and love. But having combed through 5,000 years of history to confirm an absence of the good ol’ days, what <em>can</em> we do with this information? Can these facts ever sway someone who looks backwards in longing, even if they aren’t sure exactly where they’re looking to? Levonovitz, the religion professor, says that’s not the right way to think about it. “Nostalgia narratives are often born of great pain,” he says. “And when you walk up to someone who is in great pain, and you rip away from them <em>the</em> key story that is keeping them from just dissolving into a puddle of suffering, you're messing with people.”</p>
<p>Which loops right back to Make America Great Again. The <em>again</em> was never meant to be a specific moment in time; it’s an arrow pointing any which way, to whenever someone felt better, or remembers feeling better, or assumes they might have felt better. Which means forward thinking Americans have their work cut out for them, pointing to a future that’s worth embracing over the past. “We either have to be patient and work slowly at the parts of the narratives that are most pernicious, and work gently and tactfully and lovingly with the people who believe them,” says Levinovitz, “or we have to be damn sure that when we rip that narrative away, we have something awesome to fill its place.”</p>
<p>It’s a hard story to tell, and it won’t be accomplished just by disproving the golden age. But if we can all be a little more aware of the stories we tell, and why we tell them, then at least that’s a start.</p>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/30/nostalgia_narratives_and_the_history_of_the_good_ol_days_we_ve_lamented.htmlJason Feifer2016-11-30T14:30:00ZLifeI Went Looking For “The Good Ol’ Days.” It Took Me Back 5,000 Years.241161130001Jason FeiferLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/30/nostalgia_narratives_and_the_history_of_the_good_ol_days_we_ve_lamented.htmlfalsefalsefalseI went looking for "the good ol' days." It took me back 5,000 years.Nostalgia narratives contain a fatal flaw: They harken back to real times.Photo by Justin Merriman/Getty ImagesDefine &quot;again&quot; again?The Redundant &quot;Close Proximity&quot; Is Way More Beloved Than It Should Behttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/29/close_proximity_is_a_redundant_confusing_irksome_phrase.html
<p><em>This <a href="http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2016/11/23/how-close-is-your-proximity/chronicles/where-i-go/">article</a> originally appeared in</em>&nbsp;<a href="http://zocalopublicsquare.org/">Z&oacute;calo Public Square</a>.</p>
<p>The warning echoes beneath the girdered ceiling of Boston’s South Station, and in the cramped bustle of New York’s Penn Station, on a TSA loop of repeating announcements: “Keep personal items in close proximity.”</p>
<p>Any prerecorded phrase, repeated often enough, can drive one mad. But that last two-word phrase is especially wretched.</p>
<p>“Close proximity” irks me viscerally, like chewing tinfoil. We are bombarded with it daily, not just by the TSA in train stations and airports, but also in the news, and even in literature.</p>
<p>For starters, it is redundant. Is there another variety of proximity than one that is close? Far proximity perhaps? Moderate proximity? There is not.</p>
<p>And it is wordy. “Stay close to your bags” works well, as does “keep your bags nearby.” If you like the sound of the word, you can use “keep your bags in proximity.”</p>
<p>It is hard to account for the popularity of the phrase. Maybe it’s pleasing to the ear. There’s the symmetrical arc of the five-syllable phrase, the two hard consonants kicking it off, accented on the unlikely third—that SIM sound made by “xim”—then trailing gently off. There’s a strong echo of the Latin root, <em>proximitas</em>, so proximity is a 50-cent word that suggests higher learning. The phrase, coming off our tongues, makes us feel smart, educated, erudite.</p>
<p>However pleasing it sounds, it’s a loathsome phrase for yet another reason: It seems we modify proximity with “close” because we do not trust the audience to understand proximity’s meaning when it stands alone. Anyone confused by “proximity,” we reason, will surely understand “close proximity.” It’s a patronizing attitude.</p>
<p>It is not surprising that the phrase has worked its way into bureaucratese, the hallmark of which is a redundant and long-winded surfeit of excessive verbiage. So it is easy to understand why TSA used the phrase in its announcement—“close proximity” carries the patina of officialdom, in a way that “nearby” or “close” alone do not.</p>
<p>But it is surprising how many good writers use the phrase. Robert Galbraith, a.k.a. J.K. Rowling, used the phrase four times in the lively and fun novel <em>The Cuckoo’s Calling</em>.</p>
<p>It sneaks past <em>New Yorker </em>editors, as in <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/stone-soup">this piece</a> on the paleo diet by Pulitzer Prize winning author Elizabeth Kolbert: “And, by living in close proximity to their equally crowded farm animals, early agriculturalists helped to bring into being a whole set of diseases that jumped from livestock to people.”</p>
<p>John McPhee, master practitioner and teacher of nonfiction style,&nbsp;dropped it into an otherwise exciting passage in his book <em>The Founding Fish</em>: “In close proximity to the canoe, one shad was a good deal more vigorous than the other had been.”</p>
<p>And the eloquent Gay Talese used it in <em>Thy Neighbor’s Wife</em>: “During the day he strolled through the business districts, noting the close proximity of Woolworth’s and J.C. Penney to the local massage parlor and X-rated theater.”</p>
<p>Consider those three sentences for a moment. Would they read any differently if an editor had struck the word “close”? I think not. And it’s not a matter of degrees. When writers want to indicate a more notable nearness, they typically modify the phrase with such, as in “such close proximity.” (Here, again, “such proximity” has the exact same effect.)</p>
<p>The phrase even taints journalism—which is surprising because journalists and editors are always working to pare a few syllables to fit ever-shrinking print news holes. It has appeared more than 4,000 times in the <em>New York Times</em>, starting in 1852. In 1864, the paper used it to describe Sherman’s march: “Richmond papers of Monday last are received. They report Gen. SHERMAN to be moving on, and in close proximity to Savannah.”</p>
<p>The phrase seems appropriate there, the sort of thing you would expect to read in musty archives. Oddly, though, the antiquated phrase appeals equally to younger scribes. BuzzFeed has used the phrase more than 200 times in just three years, in articles such as “You Might be Cleaning Your Penis Wrong.”</p>
<p>For all the wrong reasons, the phrase is probably here to stay, and I’ll try to tune it out, in Penn Station and elsewhere. Anyway, it’s obvious there are other stilted redundancies cluttering our lexicon. Hell, it’s blatantly obvious. </p>Tue, 29 Nov 2016 16:58:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/29/close_proximity_is_a_redundant_confusing_irksome_phrase.htmlMurray Carpenter2016-11-29T16:58:00ZLifeThe Redundant &quot;Close Proximity&quot; Is Way More Beloved Than It Should Be241161129001Murray CarpenterLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/29/close_proximity_is_a_redundant_confusing_irksome_phrase.htmlfalsefalsefalseA history of the irksome, redundant phrase "close proximity" :It's everywhere from The New Yorker to BuzzFeed.Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesTravelers at LaGuardia Airport keep their luggage in close proximity.&nbsp;In Moments of Crisis, Should You Really “Run, Hide, Fight”?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/28/what_are_the_best_instructions_for_surviving_moments_of_imminent_danger.html
<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/28/seven_hospitalized_at_ohio_state_after_shooting_attack.html">As a terrifying knife-attack scenario</a> unfurled at Ohio State University on Monday morning, emergency services <a href="https://twitter.com/OSU_EMFP/status/803251348858753024?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">tweeted</a> typical instructions to the student body: “Run Hide Fight.” This direction, regularly promoted by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, is intended to ease the thought-processes of people confronted with imminent danger. The message is ostensibly simple: Run if you can, hide if you can’t, and fight if there’s no other option on the table. Easy enough, right?</p>
<p>Not exactly. While federal agencies treat “run, hide, fight” as protocol—it’s even laid out on the <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/active_shooter_pocket_card_508.pdf">DHS’s official website</a>—studies show that it’s not fully compatible with how our brains work. In moments of peril, our natural response may be to freeze, with thought and actions temporarily suspended. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/opinion/sunday/run-hide-fight-is-not-how-our-brains-work.html?_r=0">According to professor of science Joseph LeDoux</a>, this instinct is part of our “predatory defense system” that extends to other mammals and vertebrates: “If you are freezing, you are less likely to be detected if the predator is far away, and if the predator is close by, you can postpone the attack.” Accordingly, even if running is the safest option, it’s not always a command that our brains can instantaneously put into practice.</p>
<p>Retired Lt. Col. Mike Wood adds that, aside from failing to address our “freeze” impulse, the word “run” <a href="https://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/190621006-Why-Run-Hide-Fight-is-flawed/">suggests </a>a linear path, which can be dangerous when split-second flexibility is required. He <a href="https://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/196375006-Why-Move-Escape-or-Attack-is-superior-to-Run-Hide-Fight/">proposes</a> an alternate three-word phrase to correct this problem: “Move, escape, or attack.”</p>
<p>The value of <em>move</em> relative to <em>run</em> is clear: It’s a command that more sharply contrasts with freezing. “Analysis and decision comes later, after the victim has helped himself by moving ‘off the X,’ ” Wood explains. “In training, the concepts of cover, concealment, and angular movement (instead of running straight away from the shooter) can be addressed in conjunction with the ‘move’ command.” The same line of thinking extends to the use of <em>escape</em>, which connotes the presence of a threat more clearly than <em>hide</em>, and of <em>attack</em>, which is unambiguously proactive and offensive, unlike “fight.”</p>
<p>Of course, this is about differences in how to respond to terror—there’s no one-size-fits-all policy for reaching safety, and thus, no ideal phrase to condition the masses with. As emergency physician Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer—who generally supports the use of “run, hide, fight”—<a href="http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-professionals/clinical-updates/trauma/run-hide-fight-responding-to-an-active-shooter">puts it</a>, “No one can tell us how we should or will act under these circumstances.” He’s right, in a sense: Humans may do what feels right and natural. Still, effective instruction might be able to change instinct for the better. Indeed, when every second matters, a stronger understanding of the relationship between words and our brain—between commands and impulses—could turn out to be a life-saving pursuit.</p>Mon, 28 Nov 2016 20:37:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/28/what_are_the_best_instructions_for_surviving_moments_of_imminent_danger.htmlDavid Canfield2016-11-28T20:37:00ZLifeIn Moments of Crisis, Should You Really “Run, Hide, Fight”?241161128001mass shootingslanguageDavid CanfieldLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/28/what_are_the_best_instructions_for_surviving_moments_of_imminent_danger.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat are the best instructions for surviving moments of imminent danger?Something as simple as telling people to "move" rather than "run" can make a big difference.Lyndon CollegeIs this really what you should do?There’s No Better Term for the Alt-Right Than Alt-Righthttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/22/is_alt_right_still_all_right.html
<p>Tuesday afternoon, in the wake of this past weekend’s widely covered meeting of Richard Spencer’s white supremacist National Policy Institute, <em>ThinkProgress</em>&nbsp;<a href="https://thinkprogress.org/thinkprogress-alt-right-policy-b04fd141d8d4#.dbvqexamt">published an editor's note</a>&nbsp;telling readers the site will no longer use the descriptor <em>alt-right</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
You might wonder what, if anything, distinguishes the alt-right from more hidebound racist movements such as the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan. The answer is very little, except for a bit of savvy branding and a fondness for ironic Twitter memes. Spencer and his ilk are essentially standard-issue white supremacists who discovered a clever way to make themselves appear more innocuous — even a little hip.
</blockquote>
<p>The note goes on to say that <em>ThinkProgress</em> will use the terms <em>white supremacist</em> and <em>white nationalist</em> as it deems appropriate to describe the rising crop of racist far-right groups, individuals, and publications that have risen to prominence before, during, and after the 2016 election. <em>ThinkProgress</em> will reserve the term <em>neo-Nazi</em>, which many in the media have insisted is the most apt replacement for <em>alt-right</em>, for those who refer to themselves as neo-Nazis “or adopt important aspects of Nazi rhetoric and iconography.”</p>
<p>The debate over what to call Spencer and his ilk is more than a purely semantic one. The wrong terminology, <em>ThinkProgress</em> and others have argued, <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-alt-right-full-nazi-bannon-lands-white-house-job-article-1.2882385">could contribute to the normalization</a> and promotion of virulently racist beliefs. The fact that <em>alt-right</em> is a label Spencer <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/31/the_history_of_the_alt_right_label_how_successful_has_it_been_in_shielding.html">chose himself</a>&nbsp;also places it under deserved scrutiny.</p>
<p>But <em>alt-right</em>, for now, remains the least wrong and most broadly useful moniker. As I <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/31/the_history_of_the_alt_right_label_how_successful_has_it_been_in_shielding.html">pointed out</a> in an etymology back in August, it remains the term that, in its lack of specificity, best encompasses the broad array of beliefs espoused by those who have adopted the label:</p>
<blockquote>
It includes those
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right"><strong>open to exterminating nonwhites</strong></a> and
<a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-to-replace-african-americans.html"><strong>those who want to sequester or repatriate them</strong></a>. It includes fascists,
<a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-introduction-to-national-anarchism.html"><strong>anarchists</strong></a>,
<a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-alt-right-economics-and-alternative.html"><strong>economic liberals</strong></a>,
<a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/10/unite-right.html"><strong>conservatives</strong></a>, and
<a href="http://www.vdare.com/posts/flailing-rand-paul-goes-full-cuckservative-trump-must-be-stopped-but-paleo-libertarianism-may-emerge-from-wreckage"><strong>libertarians</strong></a> as well as people who’d rather we abandon the modern state altogether and return to
<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.html"><strong>some sort of quasi-monarchy</strong></a>. It includes vociferous
<a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/05/damn-it-feels-good-to-be-christian.html"><strong>Christians</strong></a>,
<a href="http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015953.html"><strong>secularists, pagans</strong></a>,
<a href="http://therightstuff.biz/2016/04/11/zero-tolerance-why-arent-white-nationalists-and-jewish-nationalists-fellow-travelers/"><strong>and even a handful of Jews, to the disgust of the movement’s many, many strong anti-Semites</strong></a>.
</blockquote>
<p>In jettisoning <em>alt-right</em>, <em>ThinkProgress</em> risks limiting itself to terms that aren’t nearly as flexible. “A white nationalist,” the editor’s note says, “is someone who believes the United States should be governed by and for white people.” This is not necessarily the case; many who consider themselves white nationalists call for national devolution along racial lines, or for the creation of a new independent state intended as a homeland for whites. In 2013, Spencer, backed<a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2013/04/07/american-renaissance-speakers-call-white-homeland"> the latter position</a> during a conference held by the white supremacist publication <em>American Renaissance</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
Richard Spencer of the white nationalist National Policy Institute also plugged for a white homeland. Spencer argued for “peaceful ethnic cleansing,” a process he did not explain, that would clear parts of North America for Caucasians and suggested that the new state welcome white refugees from Europe. Spencer advocated a “sort of white Zionism” that would infuse whites with the dream of such a homeland just as Zionism helped spur the creation of Israel. “It is perfectly feasible for a white state to be established on the North American continent. Action is the easy part,” Spencer opined, adding, “I have a dream.”
</blockquote>
<p>All of this might seem like hair-splitting for the benefit of racists, but accuracy is important. In a roundabout way, imprecision contributes to the growth of these groups. Getting the substance of these beliefs wrong, as abhorrent as they are, feeds claims that the media has unfairly impugned and misrepresented ideas that exist outside the intellectual mainstream.</p>
<p>The term <em>neo-Nazi</em> is particularly problematic in this way. The crowd at NPI’s conference no doubt included more than a few who thought Hitler was grand. But despite Spencer’s <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/heil-victory-alt-right-leader-praises-trumps-election-as-the-victory-of-will/">intentionally provocative use of Nazi phrases</a>, he hasn’t exactly committed himself to the tenets of National Socialism. Sadly, the appeal of virulent <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/09/alt-right-leaders-we-aren-t-racist-we-just-hate-jews.html">anti-Semitism</a> is not <a href="http://global100.adl.org/">narrowly limited to Nazis</a>. Some in the alt-right have denounced Hitler—naturally, for the wrong reasons. Matthew Heimbach, leader of the Traditionalist Workers Party, <a href="https://archive.is/20130423020553/towsonwsu.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-christian-declaration.html">wrote</a> in 2013 that Nazism was despicable because it subverted Christianity and killed too many white people.</p>
<p>Moreover, like the word <em>fascist</em> as applied to Donald Trump, <em>neo-Nazi</em> has the dangerous effect of suggesting the beliefs espoused by people like Richard Spencer are somehow foreign to American history. They’re not. When Spencer claims the United States was founded by white people for white people, he’s entirely correct. His calls for a halt to immigration to preserve ethnic purity are calls for a return to what was long <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/from-benjamin-franklin-to-trump-the-history-of-americas-nativist-streak/2015/08/27/d41f9f26-4cf9-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html?utm_term=.d4ba8fe9abc8">mainstream policy</a>. Even his flirtations with Nazism recall the <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/20/when-america-s-media-cozied-up-to-hitler.html">ambivalence</a> among some Americans about the Third Reich during the 1930s.</p>
<p>Spencer, European pretensions aside, is an all-American racist, the latest in a long line of nativists declaiming the fall of the white man and the West. He won’t be the last. And adopting a term like <em>neo-Nazi</em> that suggests the ideology being peddled is something like an invading force, emanating from something that happened elsewhere, allows us to elide the darkness of our past, as we so often do, and blinds us to both the staying power of American racism and the ways it influences our present.</p>Tue, 22 Nov 2016 23:52:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/22/is_alt_right_still_all_right.htmlOsita Nwanevu2016-11-22T23:52:00ZLifeThere’s No Better Term for the Alt-Right Than
<em>Alt-Right</em>241161122001nazisOsita NwanevuLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/22/is_alt_right_still_all_right.htmlfalsefalsefalseThere's no better term for the alt-right than "alt-right":It remains the least wrong and most broadly useful moniker.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesTrump adviser Steve Bannon's former site, <em>Breitbart</em>, is widely considered one of the major publications of the alt-right.Stress-Cleaning, Gilmore Girls Therapy, and the Wordplay of Post-Election Coping Strategieshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/21/the_wordplay_of_post_election_coping_strategies.html
<p>Election stress has conceded to <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/how-to-cope-with-post-election-stress/507296/">post-election stress</a>. To deal with our new reality under President-elect Trump, many of us are “<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=stress-eat%2520election%2520&amp;src=typd">stress-eating</a>” ice cream or seeking “<a href="https://twitter.com/defoedefive/status/796625371705802752">workout therapy</a>” at the gym. Wordplay, it seems on social media, is emerging as one of America’s coping mechanisms, and we’re getting through the election results with two words in particular: <em>stress</em> and <em>therapy</em>.</p>
<p>Life after Trump is putting <em>stress</em> in front of every verb you do. We are “<a href="https://twitter.com/_holyhan/status/796168235058155520">stress-watching</a>” TV, “<a href="https://twitter.com/pizza_stump/status/797938425395609600">stress-listening</a>” to music, “<a href="https://twitter.com/JenniferIWJ/status/798383433483481088">stress-playing</a>” guitar, “<a href="https://twitter.com/robertaickmeow/status/797983385645944832">stress-reading</a>” novels, “<a href="https://twitter.com/NykDew/status/799294561709334528">stress-exercising</a>,” “<a href="https://twitter.com/ErikJones/status/796196894061924354">stress-drinking</a>,” “<a href="https://twitter.com/zoeaclay/status/796182168477323264">stress-texting</a>,” “<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%2522stress%2520clean%2522%2520election&amp;src=typd">stress-cleaning</a>,” and even having “<a href="https://twitter.com/heartlessgypsy0/status/796176696529616896">stress-sex</a>.” One tweeter <a href="https://twitter.com/StartButtonStan/status/796387803080884224">stress-joked</a>: “I feel like I’m carrying around a giant weight today. Mostly because of election results, partially from binge stress eating.” So many of us are “stress-living” now, as one user <a href="https://twitter.com/NerdReality/status/797830935974703108">pointed out</a> on Twitter. What’s going on with this <em>stress- </em>construction?</p>
<p>These <em>stress- </em>words<em> </em>are a special type of word formation linguists call <a href="http://www2.let.uu.nl/uil-ots/lexicon/zoek.pl?lemma=synthetic+compound">synthetic compounding</a>, which can function in <a href="https://arnoldzwicky.org/2016/05/07/binge-bingeing/">several ways</a>. Here, <em>stress-</em> is characterizing the purpose of the verb: <em>Stress-eating</em>, for instance,<em> </em>is a type of food consumption in response to stress. (Compare <em>stress-jogging</em>, say, to <em>stress-relieving </em>or <em>stress-testing</em>.) Speakers, liking economy, shortened the name of this behavior to <em>stress-eating</em> and then, in a process known as <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=gPbQyRdnM18C&amp;pg=PA42&amp;lpg=PA42&amp;dq=linguistics+back-formation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=8wsKnDtuPu&amp;sig=lVqOq3uKspoIlNY8REq7mKKVFuk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjrw4OYmZfQAhVHIMAKHWz5DwU4ChDoAQhFMAg%23v=onepage&amp;q=linguistics%2520back-formation&amp;f=false">back-formation</a>, rendered it a verb, <em>stress-eat</em>,<em> </em>to use more easily across other contexts.</p>
<p><em>Stress-eating </em>is an important, if not key, example of these synthetic <em>stress-</em> compounds, as it appears to have parented all its derivatives. Self-help literature has employed <em>stress-eating</em> (a type of <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-out/201309/emotional-eating-5-reasons-you-can-t-stop">emotional eating</a>) since at least <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=V14vlvpR8acC&amp;q=%2522Stress-eating%2522&amp;dq=%2522Stress-eating%2522&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y">1997</a>. And currently, if <a href="http://corpus.byu.edu">corpus</a> searches are any measure, <em>stress-eating</em> is the only <em>stress- </em>construction with any real currency, the innovations on social media yet to spread. We’ll just have to see if Trump makes <em>stress-</em> great again.</p>
<p><em>Stress-eating</em>, in form and function,<em> </em>also<em> </em>nods to <em>binge-eating</em>, which was first used in psychiatric journals in 1959 and subsequently influenced the now-pervasive <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640423791473156"><em>binge-watching</em></a>. Millions of Americans struggle with <a href="http://www.anad.org/get-information/about-eating-disorders/eating-disorders-statistics/">eating disorders</a> and <a href="https://www.adaa.org/about-adaa/press-room/facts-statistics">compulsive behavior</a>, to be sure, but the rise of <em>stress- </em>and <em>binge- </em>compounds also joins a broader <a href="https://literalminded.wordpress.com/2005/02/13/lets-problem-solve/">trend</a> of compounds in recent English. We <em>hate-watch</em> <em>The Bachelorette</em>. We <em>people-watch</em> at the mall. We <em>relationship-build</em> at business conferences. We <em>gay-marry</em> and <em>conceal-carry</em>. And before we stress-ate the Nov. 8 outcome away, we <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/08/the_election_created_a_new_verb.html">early-voted</a>.</p>
<p>While many of us are <em>stress</em>-handling the election, others are seeking out <em>therapy</em>. New York artist Matthew Chavez, notably, organized “Subway Therapy,” in which riders colorfully <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/nyregion/subway-notes-offer-a-form-of-therapy.html">papered</a> a subway passageway with personal messages written on sticky notes. People have covered Twitter, too, with their own <em>therapies</em>. To manage election-related anxiety, users have sought out “<a href="http://www.talkingaboutpolitics.com/radio-therapy/?utm_source=dlvr.it&amp;utm_medium=twitter%23.WC3lonecYdU">radio therapy</a>,” “<a href="https://twitter.com/SimplyAlya/status/799153061285412864">poetry therapy</a>,” “<a href="https://twitter.com/RetrahStore/status/795598803005014020">coloring therapy</a>,” “<a href="https://twitter.com/EvoPerrone/status/796937710942490624">puppy therapy</a>,” and, putting a positive spin on their <em>stress-</em> counterparts, “<a href="https://twitter.com/science_ooyuz/status/797947794938036224">TV therapy</a>” and “<a href="https://twitter.com/ohlenah/status/796784558515617793">food therapy</a>,” including “<a href="https://twitter.com/WildeInLA/status/795742858053558272">wine</a>” and “<a href="https://twitter.com/TroubledDays/status/797276890138411009">hot chocolate</a>” varietals.</p>
<p>The linguistics of these <em>therapy</em> phrases is fairly straightforward. The various nouns preceding <em>therapy</em>, called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct">attributive nouns or noun adjuncts</a>, act as modifiers. English abounds in these compounds, like <em>school bus</em>, and they frequently become so common we treat them as a single word over time, e.g., <em>lunchbox</em>. Therapy also abounds in these compounds. Consider <em>shock therapy</em>, <em>group therapy</em>, <em>art therapy</em>, and <em>music therapy. </em>In these terms, unlike <em>psychotherapy</em> or <em>gene therapy</em>, the attributive noun labels the therapeutic method.</p>
<p><em>Shock therapy</em>, <em>group therapy</em>, <em>art therapy</em>, and <em>music therapy</em> also all entered the language in the first half of the 20<sup>th</sup> century. The form, and practice, of <em>noun + therapy</em> had apparently become familiar enough to inspire the flippant <em>retail therapy</em> by the 1980s. In recent years, people have especially played with <em>TV therapy</em>. Facebook hosts a few <a href="https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=%2522tv%2520therapy%2522">pages</a> known as “TV Therapy,” which unwind all the nostalgia, trivia, and minutia of popular television. On Twitter, users like to cite specific shows that help them relax, from the lighter escapism of “<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%2522seinfeld%2520therapy%2522&amp;src=typd"><em>Seinfeld</em> therapy</a>” and “<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%2522parks%2520and%2520rec%2520therapy%2522&amp;src=typd"><em>Parks and Rec </em>therapy</a>” to the darker decompression of “<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%2522walking%2520dead%2520therapy%2522&amp;src=typd"><em>Walking Dead</em> therapy</a>” and “<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%2522game%2520of%2520thrones%2520therapy%2522&amp;src=typd"><em>Game of Thrones</em> therapy</a>.” As one user <a href="https://twitter.com/giselet/status/796329591493169153">announced</a>: “President....Trump?! I need some Gilmore Girls therapy asap!”</p>
<p>Post-election <em>stress</em> and <em>therapy </em>constructions are very much a part, and product, of our current political and linguistic zeitgeist. But they also underscore how extensive our psychological literacy has become in our current moment. Psychological <em>therapy</em>, as we saw, only takes off as a term at the start of 20<sup>th</sup> century, while <em>stress</em> isn’t used in the psychological sense <a href="http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=stress&amp;allowed_in_frame=0">until 1955</a>. Now, we casually riff on these once-technical terms in our one-off status updates.</p>
<p>Politics aside, constructions like <em>stress-cleaning</em> and <em>Gilmore Girls therapy</em> in our informal language suggest we have a greater understanding of the psychological reasons for many of our feelings and behaviors—and are painfully, and playfully, aware of high levels of stress and anxiety in our everyday lives, including the importance of managing it. But <em>stress-cleaning</em> and <em>Gilmore Girls therapy</em>, for all the release and escape they can provide, may not be the most adaptive coping strategies for those of us fearful of Trump’s America. That would be taking action.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p>Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:54:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/21/the_wordplay_of_post_election_coping_strategies.htmlJohn Kelly2016-11-21T15:54:00ZLife<em>Stress-Cleaning</em>,
<em>Gilmore Girls</em>
<em>Therapy</em>, and the Wordplay of Post-Election Coping Strategies241161121001languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/21/the_wordplay_of_post_election_coping_strategies.htmlfalsefalsefalse“Stress-cleaning,” Netflix therapy, and the wordplay of post-election coping strategiesLife after Trump is putting “stress” in front of every verb you do.Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesArt therapy?Why We Shouldn’t Talk About “Normalizing” Donald Trumphttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/17/stop_talking_about_normalizing_donald_trump_that_s_having_the_debate_on.html
<p>When Donald Trump won the presidency, our vocabularies didn’t bulge to accommodate the reality that this ignorant geyser of hate had ascended to the world’s yugest leadership position. We’re left pressing the same worn-out words into service, paradoxically reminding each other: <em>This is not normal.</em></p>
<p>In an essay for the <em>New York Times Magazine, </em>Teju Cole <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/magazine/a-time-for-refusal.html">wrote</a>, of the days following Trump’s win, “All around were the unmistakable signs of normalization in progress. So many were falling into line without being pushed. It was happening at tremendous speed, like a contagion.” David Remnick <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/15/1599828/-New-Yorker-editor-slams-attempts-to-normalize-Trump-as-people-living-in-a-hallucination">told</a> CNN, “We’ve normalized [the results] already. Less than a week after the election is over, suddenly Washington is going about its business talking about who’s going to get what jobs. You would think that Mitt Romney had won. It’s a hallucination.”</p>
<p>After a while one grows habituated to people explaining that Trump trespasses against all precedent and convention. With each new twist in the Trump saga—the uptick in hate crimes, the plan to <a href="mailto:http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/15/how_outlets_are_avoiding_calling_steve_bannon_a_racist_propagandist.html">appoint a racist as his chief strategist</a>, the Twitter rants against the First Amendment, the seeking of security clearances for family members—we hear the same feeble-sounding plea. “He is not normal,” <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-john-oliver-donald-trump-abnormal-20161114-story.html">insisted</a> John Oliver over the weekend. “He is abnormal.” Shouts of “normalization” have become normalized.</p>
<p>The frame we’re putting around the president-elect emphasizes how freakishly outside the mainstream his views and behavior lie. That’s useful, up to a point. But in appealing to what’s typical rather than what’s right or true, we’re missing an opportunity to make a stronger statement. Trump himself aims to center white men as “normal” and push everyone else to the periphery. If populist, white nationalist currents swept this demagogue into the White House, perhaps we shouldn’t denounce him by invoking the wisdom of crowds. Trump won the electoral college. Our country chose him. To more than 60 million of our fellow countrymen, Donald Trump is normal, even if it’s painful to admit that.</p>
<p>An outsider challenging establishment foes, Trump pledged to “make America great again”—essentially, to bring our country back to the days when white men ruled the roost. At the same time, he pledged to invert the meaning of normalcy in the United States circa 2016, bringing the fringe into the mainstream and expelling the elites to the margins. Liberals, in other words, don’t have a monopoly on the concept of normalcy. Trump’s candidacy was centered on his vision of what’s normal (the white working class) and what’s not (recent immigrants, our black president).</p>
<p>In this, Trump resembles Richard Nixon, who petitioned a “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority">silent majority</a>” of Americans to reassert their values during the turmoil of the late 1960s. And as <a href="mailto:http://www.wsj.com/articles/orange-is-the-new-normal-1464112801">James Taranto pointed out in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em></a>, he evokes Warren G. Harding, who campaigned for president in 1920 on the slogan “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_to_normalcy">return to normalcy</a>.” Both phrases carried within them a rejection of the upheavals reshaping U.S. society. They were conservative anthems, hostile to demographics newly empowered by the Great War (in Harding’s case) and emboldened by the women’s and civil rights movements (in Nixon’s).</p>
<p>While Nixon and Harding wielded the notion of normality against political outsiders, diplomats and advocates sought to <em>normalize </em>in a different sense—to solidify national alliances. A <em>New York Times </em>article from 1969 described “<a href="https://www.nexis.com/results/enhdocview.do?docLinkInd=true&amp;ersKey=23_T25063117910&amp;format=GNBFI&amp;startDocNo=0&amp;resultsUrlKey=0_T25063117920&amp;backKey=20_T25063117921&amp;csi=6745&amp;docNo=4">India’s desire to normalize relations with Pakistan</a>.” In 1981, American diplomat Jeane Kirkpatrick vowed to “<a href="https://www.nexis.com/results/enhdocview.do?docLinkInd=true&amp;ersKey=23_T25063117910&amp;format=GNBFI&amp;startDocNo=251&amp;resultsUrlKey=0_T25063164941&amp;backKey=20_T25063164942&amp;csi=6742&amp;docNo=254">fully normalize</a>” Chilean-American bonds. Over the next 20 years or so, <em>normalize </em>floated out of its foreign policy box. “Public consumption,” theorized the critic Michael Kimmelman in 2010, “normalizes all culture.” According to one expert, sexual education in schools should <a href="mailto:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/opinion/pamela-druckerman-talking-to-kids-about-sex.html%3F_r=0">“normalize,” not “dramatize,” erotic feelings</a>. A theater called the Infusionarium represents “the Children’s Hospital of Orange County’s latest effort to normalize” chemotherapy, <a href="mailto:http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/chemo-kids-infusionarium/%3F_r=0">per a 2014 column in the <em>NYT</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p>In conversations about social justice, <em>normalization </em>often exists in opposition to intolerance or bigotry. A law or cultural product may <em>pathologize </em>(portray as sick), <em>demonize </em>(portray as evil), or <em>exoticize </em>(portray as alien). You can fight these othering impulses by harnessing empathy and imagination to recast difference as commonality. For instance, we can normalize transpeople by <a href="http://love-is-notachoice.tumblr.com/post/143356095105/sidryan-normalize-using-gender-neutral-pronouns">deploying gender-neutral pronouns</a> and we can <a href="https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/pdf/70s/74/74-CTN-WGB.pdf">normalize those with disabilities</a> by making sure our workplaces provide wheelchair ramps and accessible bathrooms.</p>
<p>When members of the media cry out against “normalizing” Trump, I suspect they are tapping into a parallel tradition, one with origins in critical theory. From Ezra Pound exhorting poets to “make it new” to Derrida expounding on “differance” to Walter Pater promoting “the addition of strangeness to beauty,” artists have long tried to shock and move their readers through <a href="http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/glossary/Defamiliarization.html">defamiliarization</a>. Investing the ordinary with weirdness commands attention and enhances perception. It compels audiences to look closer, to think and wonder and refuse to take the world for granted.</p>
<p>But <em>de-normalizing </em>(what we’re supposed to do with Trump) is more, well, normative than <em>defamiliarizing</em>. It presumes there’s an in-crowd to be venerated and an out-crowd to be shunned. And it makes that veneration and shunning a matter not of principle but of consensus.</p>
<p>We have excellent cause to shun Trump. He is a racist, sexist, Islamophobic liar. His many disqualifications for the office of the presidency could fill 100 copies of the “failing <em>New York Times</em>” and embarrass the ghost of every single founding father. We’d like to think that Trump’s cornucopia of hatreds and incompetencies place him outside our accepted norms. But railing against Trump’s “normalization” just plays into his grubby hands.</p>
<p>Here is a man who built his case to the nation on the idea that some human beings are “normal” and some are “other.” Yet our response to his political anointment is to harp on his distance from the mainstream. When we talk about whether Trump is or isn’t normal, we’re having the debate on his terms, and doing so in a way that spit-shines his rebel brand. Worse, in framing this as an issue of “normalization,” we’re engaging in wishful thinking: We <em>want</em> our fellow citizens to know and understand that Donald Trump is aberrant, just as we <em>want</em> countries to interact peacefully, and we <em>want</em> transpeople to have the same rights as everyone else. But we can’t dream Trump away. We can’t deny that the United States drank his poison. The problem with Trump isn’t that he’s abnormal. It’s that he’s abominable.</p>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:02:48 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/17/stop_talking_about_normalizing_donald_trump_that_s_having_the_debate_on.htmlKaty Waldman2016-11-17T19:02:48ZLifeWhy We Shouldn’t Talk About “Normalizing” Donald Trump241161117002Katy WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/17/stop_talking_about_normalizing_donald_trump_that_s_having_the_debate_on.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy we shouldn't talk about "normalizing" Donald Trump:Here is a man who built his case to the nation on the idea that some human beings are “normal” and some are “other.” Yet our response to his political anointment is to harp on his distance from the mainstream.Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesIn appealing to what’s typical rather than what’s right or true, we’re missing an opportunity to make a stronger statement. &nbsp;&nbsp;The Cowardice of Asking “What Happened” on Election Nighthttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/17/understanding_what_happened_on_election_night_means_coming_to_terms_with.html
<p>After Donald Trump won the presidency, a dazed chorus emerged: <em>What happened?</em> The stunned syllables headlined the news. “US election: What happened?” ran Larry Beinhart’s <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/11/election-happened-161110090042779.html">analysis</a> in <em>Al Jazeera</em>. “What happened to America?” as Griff Witte and Simon Denyer <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-allies-look-on-anxiously-as-trump-takes-commanding-position-in-presidential-race/2016/11/09/c246dd4c-a63e-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html">reported</a> abroad for the<em> Washington Post</em>. We voiced these bewildered words <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2016/11/talking_to_kids_especially_daughters_about_a_donald_trump_presidential_victory.html">closer to home</a>, too. But this little phrase <em>what happened</em> is much more than a simple question looking for a literal answer. It also gives us insight into how we think about Trump’s election – and offers profound implications for what’s ahead.</p>
<p>In the immediate wake of Trump’s election, we didn’t need to specify what it was that happened. We all know what Vice News is referring to when they <a href="https://news.vice.com/story/what-happened-on-election-night-vice-news-tonight-full-episode">introduce a video</a>, “What happened? Why did it happen? What happens next?” What else could it be? <em>What happened</em> is what happened, a new gestalt so all-consuming and self-evident, so unexpected and consequential, that any specification is required only for patients waking up from comas. It’s the vocabulary of collective experience, of a solidarity forged by an era-defining event. We are bound together, divided a country as we are, by the sheer fact of <em>what happened</em>.</p>
<p>The phrase also telescopes complexity. “What happened? How Pollsters, Pundits, and Politics Got It All Wrong,” NPR’s Shankar Vedantam <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502074201/why-polls-predicted-a-hillary-clinton-win-and-were-so-wrong-about-the-election">wrote</a>.&nbsp; <em>What happened </em>enfolds the grander, stranger narrative of the 2016 presidential campaign, of America at this American-historic moment. With <em>what happened</em>,<em> </em>we can nod to a thick nest of forces and factors that shaped Trump’s victory while admitting that will be teasing out what, exactly, they are for a very long time to come.</p>
<p>We don’t use <em>what happened</em> for good news, of course. It expresses disbelief in the face of our own setbacks. “What happened?” we are open-mouthed after an unannounced layoff, a breakup out of the blue, or learning a friend we just had coffee with suddenly dropped dead. The phrase registers the dismay of devastation. It’s a threshold language, <em>what happened</em>, of paradigm shifts, sea changes, and rude awakenings. We thought we knew how the universe worked, we thought we understood its rules. But then something happened. An earthquake. A war. A Trump presidency. The world capsized our expectations, defied whatever logic, order, and conventional wisdom we vainly and arrogantly attempted to pin to it. We are reduced to uttering <em>what happened, </em>taking those three beats to register that we have entered some brave new world, that everything will now be different.</p>
<p>Yet while <em>what happened</em> acknowledges the seismic shifts like Trump’s election, it also hides from them. As Lynne Murphy, an American linguist who lives and works in England, <a href="https://twitter.com/lynneguist/status/796394981984530432">observed</a>: “Been asked for comment on election result several times today. ‘What happened yesterday’ is what they call it. New taboo.” Taboo, indeed, as <em>what happened</em> morphed into <em>it happened</em>: <em>The Economist </em><a href="http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21710028-donald-trump-won-fewer-votes-mitt-romneyin-2012-hillary-clinton-did-much-worse">dissected</a> Trump’s win with a piece titled “How It Happened.” Morocco World News <a href="https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2016/11/201283/us-election-yes-happened-now/">published</a>: “US Election: Yes, It Happened, Now What?” <em>Variety </em><a href="http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/trumps-victory-stuns-world-reaction-1201913716/">noted</a> this trend as well: “Donald Trump’s Victory Stuns the World: ‘It Happened’.” If we avoid invoking the words <em>Trump won</em>, perhaps we can keep all its evils contained in Pandora’s lexical box of <em>what happened</em>. </p>
<p>The language of <em>what happened</em>, finally, implies a cynical and defeatist passivity, a kind of disempowering victimization. The Trumpian Fates cut their cloth, the Wheel of Fortune turned. The stars aligned, the gods played on Olympus. And those of us fearful of this Trump presidency were powerless, cosmically and inevitably powerless, to do anything stop it. <em>What happened? How could this happen?</em> <em>Why did this happen?</em> <em>It happened. </em>Each <em>what</em>, <em>this</em>, and<em> it</em> gobbles up our own agency and responsibility, occluding, in their verbal abstraction, that what happened, while so much larger than any individual act or actor, was still human doing. As we seek to understand what happened, we’d be wise to remember that what will happen now is not a foregone conclusion beyond our control. It’s in our determination, a principle grounded in the core of democracy itself.&nbsp; </p>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:05:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/17/understanding_what_happened_on_election_night_means_coming_to_terms_with.htmlJohn Kelly2016-11-17T16:05:00ZLifeThe Cowardice of Asking “What Happened” on Election Night2411611170012016 campaigndonald trumpJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/17/understanding_what_happened_on_election_night_means_coming_to_terms_with.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe cowardice of asking “what happened” on election night:“What happened” is that the American people elected Donald Trump president.Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesThis happened and will be happening for the next four years.On Social Media, We Are Broken Heartsick Wretches Right Nowhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/09/trump_won_florida_and_we_are_haunted_and_stricken_and_don_t_know_what_to.html
<p>I <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/08/how_election_anxiety_is_manifesting_on_social_media.html">wrote Tuesday afternoon</a> that the pro-Hillary corridors of Facebook and Twitter rang with cheer and confidence—but that, also, maybe, Democrats’ social media triumphalism concealed some anxiety. Yeah. Remember the “cheer and confidence” part of that equation?</p>
<p>Trump just won Florida. We are all haunted heartsick wretches.</p>
<p>Blue Facebook and Twitter have collectively become a mausoleum where the phantoms of our morning hopes drift like braids of ash. No more “You go, girl!” Now it’s:</p>
<p>And on and on to infinity.</p>
<p>We can’t joke about this. We can’t comfort one another with baby animal palate cleansers when Donald Trump slouches so close to the White House. What was an improbable nightmare has shuddered into a real possibility—and we didn’t see it coming.</p>
<p>These are some things that describe my social media feeds: an unremitting wall of despair. A cataract of <em>oh god no</em>. The Vale of Shadows. The ninth circle of hell. The verbal manifestation of someone curled in the fetal position mumbling to herself <em>the horror, the horror</em>. And threaded through it all, a plaintive wail: <em>How</em>?</p>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 05:02:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/09/trump_won_florida_and_we_are_haunted_and_stricken_and_don_t_know_what_to.htmlKaty Waldman2016-11-09T05:02:00ZLifeOn Social Media, We Are Broken Heartsick Wretches Right Now2411611090012016 campaignKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/09/trump_won_florida_and_we_are_haunted_and_stricken_and_don_t_know_what_to.htmlfalsefalsefalseOn social media, we are broken heartsick wretches right now.How could this happen?Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty ImagesHow could this happen?The Triumphant Tweeting and Freaked-Out Facebooking of Election Dayhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/08/how_election_anxiety_is_manifesting_on_social_media.html
<p>Here we all are, fellow Americans. On the internet. Where so much of this interminable election has played out. Reading, refreshing, typing things, reading the things we typed, trying to project sanity. On this final day (please, let it be the final day), we come to social media like great herds of deer converging on a watering hole, skittish and desperate, lapping at drops.</p>
<p>What’s it like signing onto Twitter or Facebook on the most important date for American democracy in recent memory? If you follow the people I follow, most of whom support Hillary Clinton, it’s a master class on how the human psyche responds to stress and uncertainty. I’m seeing two strands of coping with the tantalizing dream of a Hillary presidency, the unlikely-yet-still-flickering prospect of a Trump regime. The first: triumphalism. Celebration. These are the friends uploading photos of themselves in pantsuits, applying lipstick or tugging on heels. <em>Let’s smash the glass ceiling! </em>They write. <em>Let’s watch the shards fall! </em>Some people are posting elated images of themselves outside polling stations or in phone bank offices. They’re “so inspired.” They’re baking Hillary-themed cupcakes. They’re swinging at Trump-shaped pi&ntilde;atas. They’re sharing giddy articles about the glorious stirrings in the soil of American politics and culture, the magnificent, progressive, human rights–revering beanstalk about to erupt and carry us into the sky.</p>
<p>I love these posts! I could spend all day reading them (and probably will). They are invigorating suggestions that Clinton’s victory is essentially a sure thing; they nod to the historicity of the moment. Their encapsulating gesture is the <a href="https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/780594971812429825?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">Hillary Shoulder Shimmy</a>, a roguishly confident expression of delight in the successes ahead. I scroll through, and sisterhood blooms in me like a flower, and the future looks bright and verdant and full of promise, and …</p>
<p>My hands are shaking. I just thought you should know that. I was typing that utopian dawn-of-justice stuff and <em>my hands were literally shaking</em>. That’s because all this cheerful, can-do rationalism disguises the roiling dread that many Americans might be able to force down but not extinguish. Trump, relegated to the fever swamps of the repressed unconscious, keeps rattling the bars of his cage.</p>
<p>Sometimes he even escapes. For every two or three jubilant “Let’s do this!” posts in my feed, there’s an urgent entreaty stressing the stakes of the election and imploring readers to vote <em>or else. </em>For every service-y reminder on how to find your local polling station, there is a plainspoken, earnest effort to convey—at last, for perhaps you had not understood it until just now—the true depths of Trump’s intolerability.</p>
<p>The complicated tango of uplift, patriotic pride, and soul-curdling dread unfolding on my Facebook feed right now might be summed up by one friend’s blithe posting of a sunrise, with the caption: “Morning has broken, and today we elect the first female president of the United States!” High five! I watched the “likes” gather in real time—ding, ding, ding, like a stairway to heaven. Then a comment: <em>Please be right. </em>Then another comment: <em>What’s the best website for up-to-date results?</em></p>
<p>On Twitter, too, our forced rhapsodies may conceal how we’re all freaking the hell out inside. When we’re not shooing each other toward “<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/08/videos_to_watch_to_distract_yourself_from_the_election.html">election detox</a>” content (like this <a href="http://shareably.net/children-read-to-shelter-dogs/">photo essay of children reading to lonely shelter dogs</a>, you’re welcome!) or <a href="https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/795826730200170496">cracking wise about our apprehension</a>, we’re nervously reiterating the <a href="https://twitter.com/LailaLalami/status/795687067627896832">various institutions</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/LibyaLiberty/status/796051757247954944">ideals</a> that hang in the balance. We’ve greeted Election Day with <a href="https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/795827532155277312">weariness</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/poniewozik/status/795818784498057218">grim resolve</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/795826006250635264">philosophical solemnity</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/nprmonkeysee/status/795838706464817152">abstract impatience</a>. Now we’re casting ballots for the <a href="https://twitter.com/maggiesmithpoet/status/795829151429173248">children we were</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/795999062105460736">the children we have or want</a>. Our every choice drips with meaning, purpose: We are exercising our voting rights <em>for our grandmothers</em>, in suffragette white, and we are doing it draped in our mothers’ jewelry. Once we get our stickers, though, we feel unmoored again, so we tell our friends and followers what we’ve done and why we’ve done it and what we think will happen next. We are like sharks that might die if they stop swimming, except that in this case the swimming is scrolling and clicking and ruminating and stress-eating and <a href="http://literarydevices.net/polysyndeton/">polysyndeton</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps it is the give-and-take of such an asymmetrical contest: On one hand, Clinton’s qualifications and temperament so outshine Trump’s that her victory feels relatively assured. On the other hand, Trump’s staggering unfitness for the presidency means that even the slightest hint of a GOP win provokes extreme amounts of anxiety. The superego soothes and celebrates; the id cringes with terror. Reason obviously prevails, except I still can’t stop biting my nails and I’ve remade my ponytail four times in the past 30 minutes. If Facebook and Twitter are any indication, we’ll all be toggling between those two poles for the next six or seven hours, leaving scrips and scraps of verbiage in our distracted wake. Are you ready? Me too! Hurrah! Gulp.</p>
<p><strong><em><a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/c/2016_campaign.html">See more Slate coverage of the election.</a></em></strong></p>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 20:12:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/08/how_election_anxiety_is_manifesting_on_social_media.htmlKaty Waldman2016-11-08T20:12:00ZLifeThe Triumphant Tweeting and Freaked-Out Facebooking of Election Day2411611080022016 campaignKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/08/how_election_anxiety_is_manifesting_on_social_media.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe triumphant tweeting and freaked-out facebooking of Election Day:Trump, relegated to the fever swamps of the repressed unconscious, keeps rattling the bars of his cage.Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesWe've got this! Don't we? Yes! We think.I Early Voted Today!: A Political and Linguistic Trendhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/08/the_election_created_a_new_verb.html
<p>As Liz Nagy <a href="http://abc7chicago.com/news/early-voting-in-cook-county-breaks-single-day-turnout-record/1592139/">reported</a> for Chicago’s ABC 7 News, “A record-breaking 29,968 people early voted in Cook County on Friday, surpassing a single-day turnout record set during the 2008 November presidential election.” Nagy’s report doesn’t just highlight that a historic number of Americans voted early this election, though. It also underscores that more and more of us <em>are</em> <em>early voting</em>—that is, using the noun phrase <em>early voting</em> as a verb.</p>
<p>Consider some other recent examples. Indiana’s WISH-TV <a href="http://wishtv.com/2016/11/04/hoosiers-waiting-hours-to-early-vote-after-huge-turnout/">headlined</a> an article by Tim McNicholas: “Hoosiers Waiting Hours to Early Vote After Huge Turnout.” On the <a href="http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510310/npr-politics-podcast">NPR Politics podcast</a>, Asma Khalid commented on the Clinton campaign in the finals days before Election Day: “They have had a laser-like focus. … She’s been going to all those states where people had already been early voting for the past couple of weeks.” And on social media, voters are snapping selfies with their “I voted” stickers, proudly <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%22I%20early%20voted%22&amp;src=typd">adding</a> a lexical twist: “I early voted!”</p>
<p>Though the use of <em>early vote</em> as a verb has<em> </em>spiked this election, it<em> </em>isn’t entirely new. In 2005, for instance, Jesse Clausen, an Oglala Lakota tribal member, was freely <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=UaBa2C2aUxQC&amp;pg=PA718&amp;dq=%22early+vote%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjzz7e6qpbQAhXCbiYKHahID64Q6AEIUDAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22early%20vote%22&amp;f=false">using</a> early vote as a verb in a hearing before the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act. Nor is <em>early vote</em> a unique linguistic phenomenon: It’s an example of a word-formation process known as <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=gPbQyRdnM18C&amp;pg=PA42&amp;lpg=PA42&amp;dq=linguistics+back-formation&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=8wsKnDtuPu&amp;sig=lVqOq3uKspoIlNY8REq7mKKVFuk&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjrw4OYmZfQAhVHIMAKHWz5DwU4ChDoAQhFMAg#v=onepage&amp;q=linguistics%20back-formation&amp;f=false">back-formation</a>. Back-formation fashions a new word from an existing one, typically by stripping away a suffix. While the term may be unfamiliar to nonlinguists, back-formation has generated a number of familiar words. <em>Edit </em>was derived by dropping the <em>-or</em> from <em>editor</em> as early as 1791, according to <em>Oxford English Dictionary. Donate</em> was back-formed by 1845, with the <em>-ion</em> clipped from <em>donation</em> and an <em>-e </em>fixed on to fit the pattern of other English verbs like <em>take</em> or <em>imitate</em>. <em>Execute</em>, <em>grovel</em>, <em>kidnap</em>, and <em>vaccinate </em>are some other everyday back-formations, as writer and copy editor Stan Carey has <a href="https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/back-forming-back-formations/">noted</a>. And while back-formation commonly yields them, verbs aren’t the exclusive product of this linguistic process: <em>sleaze</em>, for instance, was a new noun cut from the adjective <em>sleazy</em>.</p>
<p>Many back-formations, as we see with <em>donate</em>, involve one step: A word ending is pared from one word to make another. But other back-formations, like <em>early voting</em>, are more <a href="https://arnoldzwicky.org/2009/06/09/back-formings/">complicated</a>, as Arnold Zwicky observes. To put it simply, speakers reordered the verb phrase <em>to vote early</em> and<em> </em>fashioned it into the noun phrase <em>early voting. </em>(It’s worth noting here that <em>absentee voting</em>,<em> </em>which dates in word and practice to the <a href="https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/Innovations%20in%20Election%20Administration%209.pdf">Civil War</a>, was likely a direct model for the noun phrase <em>early voting</em>, itself <a href="https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Page/Innovations%20in%20Election%20Administration%209.pdf">firmly settled</a> into the lexicon by the 1990s.) So ensconced was <em>early voting</em> as a single, unitary concept that we easily manipulated it into other parts of speech, including the agent noun <em>early voter</em>, the adjectival <em>the early vote</em> <em>count</em>, and, of course, the back-formed verb <em>early vote.</em></p>
<p>This back-formation of words like <em>early vote </em>follows a larger <a href="https://literalminded.wordpress.com/2005/02/13/lets-problem-solve/">trend</a> toward phrasal, back-formed verbs in the English language. Business discourse features many notable examples. At a meeting, colleagues set out <a href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2016/11/04/how-to-stop-conflict-from-wreaking-havoc-on-your-work-and-career/&amp;refURL=https://www.google.com/&amp;referrer=https://www.google.com/"><em>to problem-solve</em></a><em> </em>declining sales figures. At a conference, professionals seek <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/217898/build-long-term-value-based-relationships-with-cu.html"><em>to relationship-build</em></a><em> </em>with other colleagues. Recruiters <a href="http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+news/help+leave+vancouver+lululemon+tells+ottawa/12298705/story.html"><em>headhunt</em></a> new talent. A hiring manager wants new staff who know how <a href="http://www.john-carlton.com/2011/04/how-to-critical-think-part-1/"><em>to critical think</em></a> and <a href="https://jobs.washingtonpost.com/job/37394866/high-energy-mortgage-loan-document-specialists/"><em>time-manage</em></a><em> </em>a project. A company <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/tesco-price-match-best-selling-9087396"><em>price-matches</em></a> the competition. Entrepreneurs <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/04/05/marc-cuban-thought-leadership/"><em>thought-lead</em></a> breakthrough ideas. And aside from <em>to early vote</em>, political discourse has also given us: <a href="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;gl=ie&amp;tbm=nws&amp;authuser=0&amp;q=%22to+conceal+carry%22&amp;oq=%22to+conceal+carry%22&amp;gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.1416.4458.0.4630.20.6.0.14.0.0.88.282.6.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.PkbaReRDPJU#hl=en&amp;gl=ie&amp;authuser=0&amp;tbm=nws&amp;q=%22to+absentee+vote%22"><em>to absentee vote</em></a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;gl=ie&amp;tbm=nws&amp;authuser=0&amp;q=%22to+conceal+carry%22&amp;oq=%22to+conceal+carry%22&amp;gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.1416.4458.0.4630.20.6.0.14.0.0.88.282.6.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.PkbaReRDPJU#hl=en&amp;gl=ie&amp;authuser=0&amp;tbm=nws&amp;q=%22to+same-sex+marry%22"><em>to same-sex marry</em></a> or <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=519"><em>gay marry</em></a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;gl=ie&amp;tbm=nws&amp;authuser=0&amp;q=%22to+conceal+carry%22&amp;oq=%22to+conceal+carry%22&amp;gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.1416.4458.0.4630.20.6.0.14.0.0.88.282.6.6.0...0.0...1ac.1.PkbaReRDPJU"><em>to conceal carry</em></a><em> </em>a gun, and to be<em> </em><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/the-deep-grooves-of-2016/479742/"><em>exit-polled</em></a>. On Twitter, some users, though often in jest, have even back-formed <a href="https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&amp;q=%22to%20voter%20intimidate%22"><em>to voter intimidate</em></a><em> </em>from <em>voter intimidation</em>.</p>
<p>Is there a larger reason behind the apparent growth in back-formed verbs like <em>early vote</em>? Perhaps, in this Information Age, our language is a technical one, crammed with ever-specific phrases for all the novel and niche concepts we’re starting up in our brave new world. Or maybe in the modern, post-industrial economy, our speech is more bureaucratic and technocratic, resorting to stuffy, Latinate jargon for all of our semantic red-tape. But back-formations like <em>to early vote</em>, and its kin, are also just expressing the very DNA of the English. Like the process of compounding, which we use to create new such new words as <em>humblebrag. </em>Or<em> </em>functional shifts, like when we turn the verb <em>ask</em> into a noun, <em>an ask</em>. Or just plain old economy, as it can be easier to say <em>I want to window-shop</em> than <em>I want to go window-shopping—</em>and people still understand what we’re saying just fine.</p>
<p>Not that everyone is happy about <em>early vote</em>, though. As <em>Business Insider</em>’s Josh Barro <a href="https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/793901559193174018">tweeted</a>: “The verb form is ‘I voted early’ not ‘I early voted’.” Back-formations, as is so often the case with neologisms, are often seen as <a href="https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/back-forming-back-formations/">wrong or substandard</a>. Just consider all the opprobrium people heap on <em>incent </em>or <em>liaise—</em>or even <em>donate,</em> which, yes, many language peevers actually <a href="http://www.apple.com">castigated</a> as an abomination when it debuted in the 19<sup>th</sup> century. But if early voting continues to record-break like it did this election, <em>to early vote</em> is one contest that Barro is going to have to concede.</p>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 14:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/08/the_election_created_a_new_verb.htmlJohn Kelly2016-11-08T14:00:00ZLifeThe 2016 Presidential Election Has Created a New Verb241161108001votingJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/11/08/the_election_created_a_new_verb.htmlfalsefalsefalse"Early voting" has become popular to do and say this election season.Did you early vote? Or did you vote early?Matthew Cavanaugh/Getty ImagesA historic number of Americans early voted in the 2016 presidential election.What Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand About Ironyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/28/irony_in_the_old_greek_sense_is_needed_more_than_ever.html
<p>This is a test to see if you understand irony. About to head out to a smart party, self-possessed Jenny appears wearing a dress that is quite revealing and therefore probably unsuitable for the occasion. “How do I look?” she asks her detestable housemate, John. Which of the following deadpan responses might best be described as ironic?</p>
<p>A) John: Isn't that a little too formal? </p>
<p>B) John: That's great as a first layer. Now I’d suggest a cardigan and elbow-length gloves. </p>
<p>C) John: I think if you go out dressed like that, there’s a serious risk you’ll never make it to the party.</p>
<p>I’m not going to say straightaway which of these is the right answer. I will, but not immediately. For now, what’s important is to know that when I recently posted this test on Facebook, each of the responses received some support. Some people even voted for all three. The degree of confusion surprised me—although perhaps it shouldn’t have done, since when you look up <em>irony</em> in dictionaries, it turns out that their definitions disagree. That’s right: When it comes to irony, even the dictionaries can’t make up their minds.</p>
<p>The <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>, for example, defines irony as “the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite.” The<em> American Heritage Dictionary</em>, however, defines irony as &quot;the use of words to express something *different from and often opposite to* their literal meaning” (my italics). So the <em>OED</em> believes that when someone is being ironic you know that they mean the exact opposite of what they have said. But according to the <em>AHD</em>, you can’t be certain of that. Indeed, you have no definite idea of what the ironic man or woman means. You know only that the one thing they don’t mean is what they seem to mean. Is the OED right and the AHD wrong? Or is it the other way around?</p>
<p>It gets worse. When I searched on Google, I found that there is actually a website called <a href="http://isitironic.com/">IsItIronic.com</a>, which is devoted to judging cases submitted by members of the public, and saying whether they qualify as irony. Yet while <a href="http://isitironic.com/">IsItIronic.com</a> aims to clear up uncertainty, it also demonstrates by its very existence that irony is a profoundly contested area.</p>
<p>Failed by friends, let down by the internet, and betrayed by our dictionaries, we are forced back on what has to be the last desperate resort of anyone who goes in search of meaning. Which is to say, etymology. Linguistically, the word <em>irony</em> originally grew out of the Greek word <em>eiron</em>, which strictly speaking means &quot;one who dissembles.&quot;</p>
<p>More specifically, the term was used to describe a stock character in ancient Greek comedies by the likes of Aristophanes and Menander. On stage, the “eiron” figure invariably pretended to be weaker or more ignorant than he was (a kind of ancient equivalent, if you like, of the bumbling Lt. Columbo), which enabled him to get the better of the “alazon,” a deluded braggart who believed himself entirely magnificent. And it goes without saying that, just at present, you don't have to look too far to find a prime example of an alazon. </p>
<p>One reason why all this matters to me—and we’ll get back to Donald Trump in a moment, I promise—is that I’ve written a book about coolness, which makes the case that irony, in this original Greek sense of disguised strength, is a central and defining ingredient of what it means to be cool. If you scan cool’s history, you find that it crops up all over the place. </p>
<p>There’s Hamlet, the black-clad progenitor of coolness, who pretends to be mad while he investigates his “alazonic” uncle. There’s the slovenly Sydney Carton in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0486406512/?tag=slatmaga-20">A Tale of Two Cities</a></em> and Humphrey Bogart’s caustic caf&eacute; owner in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001XUH69Y/?tag=slatmaga-20">Casablanca</a></em>: two instances of the moral bum who emerges as a hero. And perhaps most importantly of all, there’s the rabid, rambunctious Randle P. McMurphy in Ken Kesey’s novel <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0143129511/?tag=slatmaga-20">One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest</a></em>, which practically ignited the cool counterculture when it was first published back in 1962. </p>
<p>A heroic skiver, McMurphy (played by Jack Nicholson in the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000LY94N4/?tag=slatmaga-20">movie version</a>) has had himself declared insane and confined to a mental hospital in order to dodge a jail term. He's a 20<sup>th</sup> century “eiron,” in other words—a modern Hamlet, whose power as a character depends almost entirely on irony in the oldest sense. Which is to say, we know he’s not mad, but the hospital authorities, as embodied by the accursed Nurse Ratched, don’t, or they’re not 100 percent sure. And that's irony. </p>
<p>Or rather, it was irony. It used to be. Yet the danger now is that irony stumbles and flails in such a cloud of confusion that its original meaning is on the brink of being lost. And as we’ve established, this not only means that coolness is under threat. It potentially threatens the very fabric of society. Because in stories, the eiron will always triumph over the alazon. That's written into our cultural DNA. But in real life? It’s not so certain, particularly if people have now lost the ability to recognize these types for what they are.</p>
<p>So what I’m saying is that we need to save irony. How? By sharing this article. If enough people pledge to restore irony to its oldest and coolest meaning, that of disguised strength, and start using the word in that specific sense, we’ll have achieved something truly worthwhile. Because in a world in which the “alazonic” type can come within a whisker of the White House, the antidote of irony may very well hold the key to saving civilization itself.</p>
<p>That’s me done. But I promised I would say which of the replies to my Irony Test was correct. The answer is: none of them. It is Jenny, and not John, who is the ironic one. </p>Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/28/irony_in_the_old_greek_sense_is_needed_more_than_ever.htmlThomas W. Hodgkinson2016-10-28T13:30:00ZLifeWhat Donald Trump Doesn’t Understand About Irony241161028001donald trump2016 campaignThomas W. HodgkinsonLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/28/irony_in_the_old_greek_sense_is_needed_more_than_ever.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat Trump doesn’t understand about irony:It’s about disguising your strength, not overcompensating for your weakness.Jessica Kourkounis/Getty ImagesTrump doesn't realize that irony is about disguising your strength, not overcompensating for your weakness.Does Donald Trump Talk Like a Woman?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/27/does_donald_trump_talk_like_a_woman_politico_thinks_so.html
<p>Donald Trump has built a reputation as a lady-insulting, stamina-touting, sexually harassing, he-man woman-hating big-swinging dick of a presidential candidate. This image is what made a <em>Politico</em> headline from Wednesday, boldly declaring that “<a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/trump-feminine-speaking-style-214391">Donald Trump Talks Like a Woman</a>,” so intriguing. Who wouldn’t click that? In the piece, Julie Sedivy presents some compelling academic research that compares Trump’s speaking style with other politicians and finds it surprisingly feminine. Linguistic analysis reveals that Trump uses tentative language, emotion-laden words, fewer long words, and fewer prepositions and articles, all characteristics that are strongly associated with women, a category of people Trump frequently dismisses and degrades.</p>
<p>In a chart based on the research of Jennifer Jones, a doctoral candidate at the University of California–Irvine, Trump appears as a “stunning outlier”: His language registers as more feminine than any of the 34 other politicians Jones studied, including Ben Carson, Chris Christie, and Trump’s other Republican primary opponents; former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama; and even actual women like Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, and Michele Bachmann. According to the piece, these results aren’t just based on hunches or stereotypes but on statistical differences between the ways man and women talk as established by language researchers.</p>
<p>Then why does it feel like this argument wouldn’t pass most people’s gut checks? That Trump is a linguistic outlier has been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/05/us/politics/donald-trump-talk.html">discussed</a> at <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/12423688/donald-trump-speech-style-explained-by-linguists">length</a>, with <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/what-language-experts-find-so-strange-about-donald-trump-2f067c20156e#.dzk9cmyw5">various</a> experts and <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/trump-linguistics">outlets</a> weighing in and <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/651098/prince-georging-meflection-gobbing-brief-guide-trumps-rhetorical-tricks">trying to nail down</a> what makes his speaking style so different from what we’re used to. (<em>Politico</em> itself even previously concluded “<a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/donald-trump-talks-like-a-third-grader-121340">Donald Trump Talks Like a Third Grader</a>.”) The way he talks is different, for sure, with all kinds of repetition and odd syntax that <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/15/transcribers-agony-frustrated-not-by-what-trump-says-but-how-he-says-it.html">routinely frustrates transcribers</a>. And it stands to reason that this style is what some of his supporters like about him. <em>Politico</em> points out that “[r]esearch has shown that the more feminine a speaker’s style, the more likable and trustworthy he seems.” Is it possible for Trump’s speech to possess many of these indicators—using “emotional” words like <em>beautiful</em>, using fewer articles (contrary to the reputation he’s developing for <a href="http://gawker.com/the-collected-quotes-of-donald-trump-on-the-blacks-1719961925">using the word <em>the</em> while talking about some groups</a>, i.e., <em>the blacks</em>)—and still not sound feminine?</p>
<p>Take for example the quotes the story uses to compare Trump and Hillary Clinton’s speaking styles in this fall’s presidential debates. This is how the Trump one starts: “My tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan. I’m very proud of it. It will create tremendous numbers of new jobs. But regulations, you are going to regulate these businesses out of existence. When I go around—Lester, I tell you this, I’ve been all over.” And here’s Clinton: “I don’t think top-down works in America. I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their debt at a lower rate—those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy.” Amateurs like me could try to dive into those statements—I found the use of moderator Lester Holt’s first name pretty masculine, the kind of thing a sleazy salesman might say, and I found Clinton’s use of “I don’t think”/”I think” feminine for its tentativeness. But the kind of research being discussed here seems like it’s more in the weeds, the kind of thing you would need a Ph.D. to decipher. Are most people going to notice how he uses prepositions? “Trump talks like a woman” is a provocative headline, maybe even one that will get under some Trump supporters’ skin, but it’s just not totally convincing.</p>
<p>Maybe one reason for this is that it’s pretty difficult to separate what Trump says and how he talks from the specific linguistic markers he uses. This study doesn’t seem to have taken into account voice, tone, gestures, facial expressions, emphasis, and all of the other nonverbal things that come together to create the speechifying entity that is Donald Trump. And that’s all before the content of his messages, which also don’t scan as particularly feminine. He may check off a lot of feminine linguistic boxes, but he doesn’t sound like a woman. He’s sui generis: He sounds like Donald Trump.</p>Thu, 27 Oct 2016 13:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/27/does_donald_trump_talk_like_a_woman_politico_thinks_so.htmlHeather Schwedel2016-10-27T13:00:00ZLifeDoes Donald Trump Talk Like a Woman?241161027001donald trump2016 campaignHeather SchwedelLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/27/does_donald_trump_talk_like_a_woman_politico_thinks_so.htmlfalsefalsefalseDoes Donald Trump talk like a woman?One Politico writer thinks so.Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty ImagesTrump's built his reputation on machismo, but does he have a feminine speaking style?What’s With All Trump’s Talk About “Draining the Swamp”?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/26/why_do_trump_and_his_supports_keep_talking_about_draining_the_swamp.html
<p>In a <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trumps-five-point-plan-for-ethics-reform">press release</a> from Oct. 17, Trump pledged to “drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.” He then <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/788402585816276992">tweeted</a>: “I will Make Our Government Honest Again — believe me. But first, I’m going to have to #DrainTheSwamp.” Since then, Trump and his supporters have punctuated tweet after tweet with the <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%2523draintheswamp%2520&amp;src=typd">hashtag</a>. What are they talking about?</p>
<p>Politicians<em> </em>have long<em> </em>colored calls to clean up government corruption with <em>drain the swamp</em>. In 2006, newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/06/AR2006100600056.html">pledged</a> to “drain the swamp” in Congress after 10 years of Republican control. After 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/ret.defense.rumsfeld/">committed</a> to “drain the swamp” of terrorism; the phrase was a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/draining-swamp">favorite</a> of Bush administration officials during the ensuing wars they launched in the Middle East. Earlier, in 1983, President Reagan <a href="http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1983/03/12/page/9/article/reagan-still-draining-the-swamp/index.html">described</a> his chief mission as “draining the swamp” of big government.</p>
<p>At its bottom, <em>drain the swamp</em> is a metaphor: If you drain the swamp, you eliminate the mosquitoes (or snakes and alligators, in other iterations) that breed disease. But, ironically, the original disease the expression referred to was the very thing Trump has built his campaign on: big business. Etymologist <a href="http://barrypopik.com">Barry Popik</a> has <a href="http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/drain_the_swamp_clean_up_government">traced</a> <em>drain the swamp</em> back to the socialist movement of the early 20<sup>th</sup> century. In a 1903 letter to the<em> Daily Northwestern</em>, Winfield R. Gaylord, state organizer of the Social Democratic Party, precursor to Eugene Debs’ Socialist Party of America, wrote: “Socialists are not satisfied with killing a few of the mosquitoes which come from the capittalist [sic] swamp; they want to drain the swamp.” Another Wisconsin socialist, Victor Berger, provides a textbook example in 1912: “It cannot be avoided any more than malaria in a swampy country. And the [financial] speculators are the mosquitos. We should have to drain the swamp—change the capitalist system—if we want to get rid of those mosquitos.” The following year, labor and community organizer Mary “Mother Jones” Harris (and magazine namesake) deployed the phrase: “The capitalist and striker—both men are all right—only they are sick; they need a remedy; they have been mosquito bitten. Let’s kill the virulent mosquito and then find and drain the swamp in which he breeds.” The mosquitoes, for Harris, were the deeper, industrial forces that pit labor against bosses.</p>
<p><em>Drain the swamp</em> isn’t just a vivid conceit with a revolutionary flair: It also alludes to the stubborn <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/29/no-dc-isnt-really-built-on-a-swamp/?utm_term=.a63b3a089610">myth</a> that Washington, D.C., was built on a swamp, which, fatefully, had to be drained to accommodate the new seat of American democracy and power. As historians and scientists have noted, only a tiny fraction of the District, for all its humidity, was ever swampy enough to require any such drainage; the ecosystem is actually closer to a tidal marsh. (<em>Manage the tidal marsh</em>, while perhaps better characterizing the day-to-day slog of government work, doesn’t have the same ring to it.) Myth aside, <em>drain the swamp</em> has proved sticky over the course of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, used by Democrats and Republicans, socialists and capitalists, to condemn whatever particular malady they believe is plaguing our government.</p>
<p>But leave it to Trump to drag this mucky metaphor even further into the mud. For Trump’s swamp isn’t just home to political cronies and crooks, whom the expression typically targets: The media, polling, leaders of his own political party, the abstract Establishment, and just about anything that challenges his view of the world, and himself, gets sucked into his vortex. A pro-Trump political cartoonist, Ben Garrison, <a href="http://grrrgraphics.com/store/p66/Trump_%2522Drain_the_Swamp%2522_Print.html">illustrated</a> some of the swamp things Trumpism wants to cleanse, from CNN rats to bloodthirsty globalism:</p>
<p>Notice, though, the <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%2523maga%2520&amp;src=typd">#MAGA</a>-capped amphibian in Garrison’s cartoon. It’s Pepe, a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/27/anti_defamation_league_classifies_white_nationalist_favorite_pepe_the_frog.html">cartoon frog</a> appropriated as a symbol of white supremacy and much memed in support of Trump’s candidacy. And frogs, well, live in swamps—<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2016/10/how_to_drain_a_swamp.html">not to mention that you can’t drain a swamp like you empty a bath</a>. You have to build special ditches and canals that redirect the water. But knowing that would require doing a little bit of homework.</p>Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:59:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/26/why_do_trump_and_his_supports_keep_talking_about_draining_the_swamp.htmlJohn Kelly2016-10-26T14:59:00ZLifeWhat’s With All Trump’s Talk About “Draining the Swamp”?241161026001donald trump2016 campaignlanguageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/26/why_do_trump_and_his_supports_keep_talking_about_draining_the_swamp.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat’s with all Trump’s talk about “draining the swamp”?The metaphor has a long-running political history.Joshua Lott/Getty ImagesThanks, Obama.In Honor of the GOP Nominee: What Exactly Is an Assclown?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/24/what_exactly_is_an_assclown.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/send-in-the-assclowns/">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing. </em></p>
<p>Have those creepy clowns been terrorizing your neighborhood this autumn? Kick ‘em in the seat of their oversized, particolored pants with this choice insult: <em>assclown</em>. To be sure, I’m certain we can all conjure up some far stronger words for those evil motherfuckers, but let’s have a closer look at this jester gibe.</p>
<p><em>Assclown </em>rose to prominence in Mike Judge’s 1999 <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003YT5TGE/?tag=slatmaga-20">Office Space</a> </em>(which also features a memorable example of <em><a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/what-the-fuck-is-the-a-in-fucking-a/">fucking A</a></em>). In this clip, cubicle drone Michael Bolton vents his spleen about sharing his name with the musician, whom he smears as a “no-talent assclown”:</p>
<p>The now-classic phrase is the <em>gros mot juste</em>, at least for Bolton’s many haters: How could he, or anyone, think his schmaltzy music is actually any good?</p>
<p>As a swear, <em>assclown</em> is a newer member of that noble <em>ass-</em> family, sibling to <em>assbag</em>,<em> assbucket</em>, <em>asshat</em>, <em>asshole</em>, <em>asswipe </em>and any number of other <em><a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/?s=ass">ass</a></em> + NOUN compounds. These formations variously ridicule someone as laughably and contemptibly idiotic, dickish, or worthless. <em>Assclown</em>, however, is a pejorative pie thrown especially in the face of someone who, wrongly, thinks his actions are clever, funny, or worthwhile. A 2009 <em>Gawker </em><a href="http://gawker.com/5949293/ass-clown-defaces-tate-rothko-mural-says-he-did-the-work-a-favor">headline</a> illustrates the particular sense well: “Ass Clown Defaces Rothko Mural, Says He Did the Work a Favor.” (The late <em>Gawker</em> was particularly <a href="https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=site:gawker.com+assclown">fond</a> of the epithet.)</p>
<p><em>Assclown</em> has produced some offspring, too: the delightful derivative <em><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=assclownery">assclownery</a></em>, the more intensive varietal <em><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuck+clown">fuckclown</a></em>, and <em><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clownbag">clownbag</a></em>, a doubled-down recombination of<em>assclown</em> and <em>douchebag</em>. Its constituent parts, <em><a href="https://greensdictofslang.com/search/basic?q=ass">ass</a></em> and <em><a href="https://greensdictofslang.com/search/basic?q=clown">clown</a></em>, meanwhile, have their own sweary, slangy stories to tell, which you should probe further on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/author/misterslang/">Jonathon Green</a>’s<em> Dictionary of Slang</em>, <a href="https://greensdictofslang.com/">now available online</a>.</p>
<p>Since <em>Office Space</em>, <em>assclown</em> has cameoed in other swear-studded, puerile comedies in the early to mid-2000s, notably <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009ZM9VF4/?tag=slatmaga-20">Bad Santa</a></em> (2003), <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0026ZH1CC/?tag=slatmaga-20">Scary Movie 4</a></em> (2006), and <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000ME5B2G/?tag=slatmaga-20">Accepted</a></em> (2006). But some&nbsp;writers have seen more lexical potential in <em>assclown</em>. In 2010, on her popular relationship advice blog Baggage Reclaim, Natalie Lue helped make sure her readers weren’t involved with the <em>assclown</em>. As she <a href="http://www.baggagereclaim.co.uk/how-to-spot-an-assclown/">defined </a>it: “An assclown is someone that mistreats you and more often than not eventually proves to be a waste of time and space.” Her article goes on to identify the telltale signs of this dating species, heading each item with: “You know he’s an assclown when…” And Jen Doll, writing for<em> </em>the <em>Village Voice</em> that same year, <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/news/why-you-should-absolutely-despise-that-ass-clown-you-dated-in-a-moment-of-rare-weakness-6717321">urged</a> in a headline: “Why You Should Absolutely Despise That Ass-Clown You Dated in a Moment of Rare Weakness.” The reason? Strong negative feelings following a breakup may help stave off depression. Swearing: It’s <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/book-review-in-praise-of-profanity-by-michael-adams/">good</a> for you.</p>
<p><em>Assclown</em> has also been at the center of political controversy. In 2015, Minnesota sports producer Kevin Cusick <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/17/minnesota-newspaper-calls-president-obama-an-assclown-apologizes/">had to apologize</a> after suggesting President Obama was an<em> assclown</em>. Cusick put together a slideshow for the<em> St. Paul Pioneer Press</em> online that featured President Obama wielding a selfie stick. He captioned the image, used for larger social commentary on taking selfies as such: “A fool-proof way to make yourself look like a self-absorbed assclown.” Thinking you’re clever when you’re really not? I think we have a word for that, Mr. Cusick.</p>
<p>And thanks to this presidential election, philosopher Aaron James released <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0385542038/?tag=slatmaga-20">Assholes: A Theory of Donald Trump</a></em>, a timely update to his 2012 <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0804171351/?tag=slatmaga-20">Assholes: A Theory</a></em>. As he poses his central question: “What is it for someone to be an asshole?” <a href="http://www.onassholes.com/?p=811">And</a>, “What precisely is the difference between the asshole and the mere jerk, prick, dick, twit, wanker, prat, schmuck, cad, boor, bastard, ass, ass-clown or douchebag?”</p>
<p>According to James:</p>
<blockquote>
A person counts as an
<em>asshole</em>, when and only when, he systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people.
</blockquote>
<p>(He uses <em>he</em> because, he argues, assholes are by and large men.) James proceeds to develop an exacting—and serious—typology of the asshole, distinguishing between the likes of the Smug Asshole, the Boorish Asshole, the Royal Royal Asshole, the Corporate Asshole, and yes, the Presidential Asshole. (For more on Asshole Studies, see Geoffrey Nunberg’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1610392582/?tag=slatmaga-20">Ascent of the A-Word</a></em>.)</p>
<p>Where does Trump fit in? His type is the <a href="http://lithub.com/a-taxonomy-of-the-ass-clown-on-donald-trump/">Assclown Showman Asshole</a>, with a bit of the Bullshitter and Winner mixed in. And for James, the <em>assclown</em> is specifically “someone who seeks an audience’s enjoyment while being slow to understand how it views him.” When it comes to Trump, that sounds pretty accurate, but I’m certain we can all conjure up some far stronger words.</p>Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/24/what_exactly_is_an_assclown.htmlJohn Kelly2016-10-24T13:30:00ZLifeIn Honor of the GOP Nominee: What Exactly Is an Assclown?241161024001donald trumplanguageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/24/what_exactly_is_an_assclown.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat is the difference between an assclown and its etymological cousin, the asshole?Donald Trump is the Assclown Showman Asshole, with a bit of the Bullshitter and Winner mixed in.Dan Kitwood/Getty ImagesReal clowns who may or may not also be assclowns.Profanity Censorship Is Arbitrary. Stop Doing It.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/21/media_outlets_should_stop_censoring_profanities.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/10/09/watershed-moments-donald-trump-rakeyia-scott-and-the-times/">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language,</a> a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>Ben Zimmer called the dissemination of Donald Trump’s recorded conversation with Billy Bush a “<a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/10/08/a-banner-day-for-profanity/">watershed moment in public profanity</a>,” since major&nbsp;news outlets such as CNN and the <em>New York Times</em> presented Trump’s remarks without bowdlerization. Even <em>Times</em> subscribers who avoid the internet and cable&nbsp;news had to confront the words <em>pussy</em> and <em>fuck</em> on Page One, above the fold and before the jump, on their way to the Saturday crossword.</p>
<p>Let’s compare this with how the <em>Times</em> handled the death of Keith Scott two weeks earlier.</p>
<p>On the afternoon of Sept. 23, the <em>Times</em> website posted a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-scott-shooting-video.html">video of Charlotte, North Carolina, police officers’ deadly confrontation with Scott</a>, which his wife, Rakeyia, recorded on her cellphone.</p>
<p>In the video, the officers yell repeatedly at Keith Scott to “get out of the fucking car.”</p>
<p>After the shooting, Rakeyia Scott screams, “He better not be fucking dead.”</p>
<p>Her cellphone video appeared on the <em>Times</em> website with a transcript below, profanity and all. Then the <em>Times</em> added an article by Richard Fausset and&nbsp;Yamiche Alcindor above the transcript. At 2:38 p.m, <a href="http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1258018/1258066/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-scott-shooting-video.html">according to NewsDiffs</a>, their article included both those quotations, and five mentions of the word <em>fucking</em> all told.</p>
<p>By 9:25 p.m, <a href="http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1258202/1258419/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-scott-shooting-video.html">NewsDiffs shows</a>, this article had been edited to have the officers saying “ ‘drop the gun’ or some variation of it,” and quotes Rakeyia Scott as saying, “He better not be&nbsp;[expletive] dead.” The verbatim transcript disappeared into the video, as subtitles—and this text is not searchable through the <em>Times</em> site or Google. Nor&nbsp;were they printed in the Saturday paper, where the article appeared on Page One.</p>
<p>If you look at either situation as an isolated event, there’s a logic to each editorial decision. <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/new-york-times-cnn-report-trumps-vulgarities-in-full-229330"><em>Politico </em>quoted</a> <em>Times&nbsp;</em>editors explaining why they let Trump say <em>fuck</em>. And no doubt editors had their reasons for removing the word <em>fucking</em> from the mouths of Rakeyia Scott&nbsp;and the police officers yelling at her husband.</p>
<p>Case by case, you may agree with that logic, or you can argue with it. As <a href="https://medium.com/@bdeskin/a-portrait-of-grief-race-profanity-22eb0febe31b">I wrote about the Keith Scott story</a> before the&nbsp;Donald Trump tape surfaced:</p>
<blockquote>
When can a reasonable person curse, if not in grief and despair?
</blockquote>
<p>If you look at these two cases together, then you can ask why profanity is necessary to convey the depth of Donald Trump’s depravity, but not to express&nbsp;the intensity of the Charlotte police’s show of force or, after the shooting, the depth of Rakeyia Scott’s loss.</p>
<p>There are differences: Trump is a presidential candidate; Scott, until she made this recording, was a private citizen, a black woman whose husband had a&nbsp;traumatic brain injury. Scott family lawyers gave her cellphone video to the <em>Times</em>; the last thing Trump wanted was for the public to watch his busride&nbsp;with Billy Bush.</p>
<p>Once upon a time, public profanity was a rarity, but that’s long behind us. Chronicle, a tool for “visualizing language usage in New York Times news&nbsp;coverage throughout its history,” <a href="http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=unprintable.four-letter.expletive.profanity&amp;format=count">makes that clear</a>:</p>
<p>Using the <a href="https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&amp;vertical=default&amp;q=%23fittoprint%20%40bdeskin&amp;src=typd">Twitter hashtag #fittoprint</a> and then on the <a href="http://fit-to-print.info/">Fit to Print Tumblr</a>, I’ve cataloged hundreds of examples of Timesian expletive&nbsp;avoidance over the past several years, as well as a few cases where the <em>Times</em> did publish expletives.</p>
<p>One problem with censorship is that it is arbitrary. You can <a href="http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/06/happy-20th-birthday-vice-media/">name the band Pussy Riot but in the same article call Perfect Pussy “an unprintable name,”</a> even though you ran <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/fashion/meredith-graves-of-perfect-pussys-festival-style.html">that article about Perfect Pussy’s lead singer</a> five months earlier. A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/invisible-child/#/?chapt=4">homeless girl’s mother can say <em>fucking</em></a> in an exclusive&nbsp;five-part series with a fancy layout and Pulitzer aspirations, but the widow of the latest Black Lives Matter victim can’t, except in the subtitles of the&nbsp;video, and on the video itself. But Donald Trump can.</p>
<p>This is nonsense. Arbitrary nonsense. The <em>New York Times</em> used to have control over what information reached its audience, but that’s long behind us, too.</p>
<p>So is the watershed moment for public profanity, as the <em>Times </em>archives show.</p>
<p>It’s time for editors at the <em>Times</em>—and at other news organization that overestimate their role as gatekeepers—to acknowledge the reality of today’s&nbsp;media climate.</p>
<p>Please publish what people said and stop wasting everyone’s time.</p>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:37:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/21/media_outlets_should_stop_censoring_profanities.htmlBlake Eskin2016-10-21T17:37:00ZLifeProfanity Censorship Is Arbitrary. Stop Doing It.241161021002medialanguagecensorshipdonald trumpBlake EskinLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/21/media_outlets_should_stop_censoring_profanities.htmlfalsefalsefalseDonald Trump is changing the way the media handles publishing profanities:When is it OK to publish "fuck" and "pussy" on the front page of the New York Times?Win McNamee/Getty ImagesThe Republican presidential nominee proved to have a colorful vocabulary in footage leaked earlier this month.The Strange and Searching Linguistic Experiments on Bon Iver’s 22, a Millionhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/21/bon_iver_s_22_a_million_lyrics_and_semiotics_reviewed.html
<p>Bon Iver’s chart-topping new album, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KEMSMZS/?tag=slatmaga-20">22, a Million</a></em>, is a dense, cryptic mashup. Musically, Justin Vernon qua Bon Iver overlays his earthy, aching melisma with processed, robotic-sounding samples. His lyrics leap from mundane acts of folding his clothes to religious images of folding his hands in prayer. The track titles are numerological riddles, the album artwork is marked with alienlike symbols, and yet its visceral core requires no decoding. These polyvocal textures tell of personal, relational, and spiritual breakdowns and reconfigurations—and, just as dramatically, linguistic ones, too.</p>
<p><em>22, a Million</em>’s track titles are conspicuously strange. For instance, Track 1 is “22 (OVER S∞∞N)”, Track 3 “715 - CRΣΣKS,” and Track 9 “____45_____.” Each reads like a line from a <a href="https://www.poetryfoundation.org/resources/learning/glossary-terms/detail/language-poetry">L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E</a> poem composed in <em>The Matrix</em>. The m&eacute;lange of numbers, symbols, and typography suggest a relationship between signifier and signified that is unstable and slippery, as if to scramble what we can express with our words and the meaning we can access through them. As John Ashbery, whose poetry never rested in probing for a language to transcend the experience of individual consciousness, articulates this linguistic predicament in <a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/self-portrait-in-a-convex-mirror/">“Self-portrait in a Convex Mirror”</a>: There are “no words to say what it really is.” Vernon’s titles enact a breakdown of meaning, at once exposing a foreign code when our familiar letters have fallen away and hacking into our dull, ordinary language with an exotic cipher.</p>
<p>Like his semiotics, Vernon’s lyrics also reach for an elusive meaning. In the opening lyrics of “<a href="http://genius.com/Bon-iver-10-d-e-a-t-h-b-r-e-a-s-t-lyrics">10 d E A T h b R E a s T ⚄ ⚄</a>,” he stammers the word <em>fever</em>, as if always circling around but never quite settling on it: “Fe, fever rest…feever rest.” In “<a href="http://genius.com/Bon-iver-715-crks-lyrics">715 - CRΣΣKS</a>,” he drifts in a stream of sonic associations: “Her, heron hurried away.” Elsewhere, syllables self-generate in intuitive but arbitrary wordplay, attracted not by sense but by pure sound. Offering little other text to orient his point, he elliptically affiliates such pairs as <em>sinking/synching</em>, <em>ore/core</em>, and <em>unorphaned/northern. </em>The few, clear ideas Vernon is able to convey through a broken language only underscore futility and failure: “Threw the meaning out the door…There ain’t no meaning anymore,” he sings on “<a href="http://genius.com/Bon-iver-29-strafford-apts-lyrics">29 #Strafford APTS</a>.” “Without knowing what the truth is,” he twice intones on “<a href="http://genius.com/Bon-iver-45-lyrics">____45_____</a>.”&nbsp; Again, <a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/self-portrait-in-a-convex-mirror/">Ashbery</a>: Our words “seek and cannot find the meaning of the music.”</p>
<p>But seek we must, a fate the artist is condemned to, as Vernon knows well on <em>22, a Million</em>: “I will run…Have to crawl,” he insists on “<a href="http://genius.com/Bon-iver-8-circle-lyrics">8 (circle)</a>.” If the language given to us is broken, then we must build a new one. And Vernon does just that by literally forging a new vocabulary. His coinages sound like words taken from a metaphysics in a universe just one dimension removed from us. “<a href="http://genius.com/Bon-iver-10-d-e-a-t-h-b-r-e-a-s-t-lyrics">10 d E A T h b R E a s T ⚄ ⚄</a>” features “dedicoding every daemon,” which appears to blend <em>dedicating</em> with <em>coding</em> or <em>decoding. Dedicoding</em> has the sense of reckoning with the attendant forces in his life, creative and destructive, through some devotional ritual. “<a href="http://genius.com/Bon-iver-29-strafford-apts-lyrics">29 #Strafford APTS</a>” presents <em>paramind</em> after the first chorus, which we might take to mean “beside” or “beyond the mind,” an attempt to label an out-of-consciousness experience that accompanies loss. Wordplay in “<a href="http://genius.com/Bon-iver-666-lyrics">666 ʇ</a>” stumbles on <em>waundry</em>: “Ain’t that some kind of quandry–waundry.” <em>Waundry </em>may join <em>quandary</em>, itself clipped here to the colloquial <em>quandry</em>, with <em>wander</em>, pointing to the existential situation of “looking for something but we don’t know what it is.” And on “<a href="http://genius.com/Bon-iver-8-circle-lyrics">8 (circle)</a>,” Vernon styles himself an “Astuary King.” <em>Astuary</em> seems to marry <em>aster</em>, Greek for “star,” and <em>estuary</em>, where an ocean meets a river. We might imagine this <em>astuary </em>as a celestial threshold, with Vernon stuck straddling the material and spiritual realms it demarcates. In his newfangled idiolect, we can see Vernon trying to think through—to resolve and move on from—the pain and confusion of liminality, transitionality, transience, and uncertainty.</p>
<p>We can’t be sure what, exactly, Vernon intends in his enigmatic track titles or what he wants his word coinages to signify. But there’s no doubt that he’s not simply experimenting with music on <em>22, a Million</em>: He’s also experimenting with language itself. Of course, his particular efforts are not new: Postmodern <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=huGEAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA293&amp;lpg=PA293&amp;dq=postmodern+poetic+theory&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=tLDzPR4lmQ&amp;sig=k7D_pMWdH_RVJakiJfxgm0fUQvE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwip5dH5tebPAhXGWRQKHWyIDPg4ChDoAQgrMAM%23v=onepage&amp;q=postmodern%20poetic%20theory&amp;f=false">poetics</a> has long grappled with semiotic breakdown and hip-hop artists have a tradition of inventing <a href="http://uk.complex.com/music/2013/04/the-15-best-made-up-words-in-rap-history/">new words</a>. But it’s a compelling and challenging idea to dramatize on a popular album: Our words fail, but they’re what we have to work with.</p>Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/21/bon_iver_s_22_a_million_lyrics_and_semiotics_reviewed.htmlJohn Kelly2016-10-21T13:30:00ZLifeThe Strange and Searching Linguistic Experiments on Bon Iver’s
<em>22, a Million</em>241161021001John KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/21/bon_iver_s_22_a_million_lyrics_and_semiotics_reviewed.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe strange and searching linguistic experiments on Bon Iver's 22, a Million:His coinages sound like words taken from a metaphysics in a universe just one dimension removed from us.Mark Metcalfe/Getty ImagesJustin Vernon of Bon Iver performs at the Sydney Opera House on March 11, 2012.Why Do People Keep Talking and Joking About Humans?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/20/people_keep_saying_human_why.html
<p>If you have a favorite human, the latest in GIF technology now allows you to let him or her know it in no uncertain terms. The <a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/my-favorite-YgICvGA9heu4g">“YOU ARE MY FAVORITE HUMAN” GIF</a> delivers an all-caps message that shimmers over a disembodied alien head in stars. Meanwhile, <a href="https://memegenerator.net/instance/62201236">the Wonka</a> expresses the same sentiment, but for candy-tycoon-weirdo fans. In the physical realm, there are “favorite human” <a href="https://www.pinterest.com/pin/369224869424869658/">cutoff tank tops</a>; you can also purchase “favorite human” <a href="http://www.zazzle.com/sea_foam_favorite_human_mug-168672341949889345">mugs</a>, <a href="https://www.etsy.com/listing/241625119/youre-my-favorite-human-space-cat-funny?ref=market">greeting cards</a>, and <a href="https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fyoure_my_favorite_human_baby_bodysuit-r08473f9a8ead4e4fb9986c67eb7e4aeb_j2nhc_324.jpg&amp;imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zazzle.com%2Ffavorite%2Bhuman%2Bgifts&amp;docid=dRmYwsFk3TrwhM&amp;tbnid=qsVOvrhaD99S_M%3A&amp;w=324&amp;h=324&amp;bih=658&amp;biw=1436&amp;ved=0ahUKEwis6p3_sefPAhXKHT4KHbmnALg4ZBAzCC0oKTAp&amp;iact=mrc&amp;uact=8">onesies</a>, some of which are accented with aliens, hearts, and space-traveling cats to give your feelings some pizzazz.</p>
<p>Such webanalia constitutes just one new use of <em>humans</em> among us. Nowadays, referring to a person as a <em>human</em> in the singular and to people as <em>humans</em> is spreading in popularity and into various conversational realms. I don’t have the anthropological studies to verify this phenomenon, but the cool kids around me keep wielding <em>human </em>as a term of endearment, in the “favorite human” sense, and they’re also using it to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=%22like+a+human%22&amp;sa=N&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1428&amp;bih=750&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbo=u&amp;source=univ&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjfrYfOuuDPAhXJ4D4KHX31B9IQsAQIKw#tbm=isch&amp;q=my+human">mimic the perspective of their pets</a>, as in, <em>my sweet tabby Lorenzo thinks I’m his human</em>.</p>
<p>Every person who has ever uttered <em>bleep bloop </em>has known the pleasure of imagining themselves as a robot. Part of the fun is thinking about humans as a foreign species, one lower and weaker than your own. <em>Poor little human. So feeble, so bogged down with emotions and technical flaws.</em> This is <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PunyEarthlings">classic stuff</a>—allusive to Isaac Asimov and <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GRW4A64/?tag=slatmaga-20">Star Trek</a> </em>and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007I8KXQ8/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>The</em> <em>Twilight Zone</em></a><em> </em>and more—and referring to a human or humans in the second- and third-person is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1BdQcJ2ZYY">key to the game</a>. But with artificial intelligence finally interacting with us in the form of <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/cover_story/2016/04/alexa_cortana_and_siri_aren_t_novelties_anymore_they_re_our_terrifyingly.html">Siri, Alexa, and Cortana</a>, robo-homo relations have crossed a new frontier.</p>
<p>The internet is probably inspiring more <em>human</em> use than any robot, though. Some people have grown fond of calling themselves or others <em>human</em> to acknowledge or scorn feelings of, well, inhumanity that can plague a life online. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=get+off+the+internet+feel+human&amp;oq=get+off+the+internet+feel+human&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.5363j0j4&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=feel+human+get+offline"><em>Get offline and be a human</em></a>, the smugs chide. <em>I finally went outside today, I had to feel like a human</em>, honest people confess. <em>I</em> <em>met someone in the meatspace Monday and remembered I am actually a human—</em>OK, I made this one up. No one has met a human in the flesh in five years.</p>
<p>Life online is wondrous, but it can also feel cold, remote, and yes, alien. As the internet, smartphones, and A.I. have invaded more and more human hours and days, it’s only natural that we are using <em>human </em>to acknowledge and reckon with people as a species apart from this rapidly ubiquitous technology, and that we’re reaching for a word that emphasizes our physicality and biology. (It’s an instinct behind the trend toward natural, organic, handmade, artisanal everything, too.) The joke nods at our simultaneous familiarity with digital life—a new thing—and estrangement from what’s elemental, a very old thing. This astonishment at biology is funny; comedian John Hodgman uses it when he discusses his “<a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=john%20hodgman%20human%20children">human children</a>.” I’m 30, people around me keep procreating, and some refer to their offspring as “human babies.” This always makes me laugh; it’s either acknowledging that this little baby is a bizarre creature that may as well be a robot or a monster or an alien, or it’s self-deprecating, hinting that we’re just normal folks living digital lives, and oh right, it’s the human baby that’s earthly and uncorrupted by technology. A human, how strange.</p>
<p>Thinking about people specifically as <em>humans</em> seems less and less strange all the time, in part because popular culture now bombards us with fantastical fiction wherein human beings either become or face superhumans. Religion and myths have long familiarized people with the idea that gods or other more powerful, more intelligent beings may be out there. But for the past decade and a half, superhero films from Marvel and DC, supernatural television shows like <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0046XG48O/?tag=slatmaga-20">Buffy the Vampire Slayer</a> </em>and <em><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/television/2016/07/stranger_things_a_spielberg_homage_by_the_duffer_brothers_on_netflix_reviewed.html">Stranger Things</a></em>, and transmedia fantasy series like <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0544445783/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Lord of the Rings</a> </em>and <em><a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/g/game_of_thrones.html">Game of Thrones</a></em> have become uniquely pervasive. It’s a clich&eacute; to note that these stories are no longer the province of “nerds” and “geeks,” but it’s true; Americans, at least, have grown comfortable seeing themselves under threat from superhumans, or at least condescended to by them. Some <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-leadership/peter-thiels-life-goal-to-extend-our-time-on-this-earth/2015/04/03/b7a1779c-4814-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html">Silicon Valley mutants</a> have grown so comfortable with the idea that they’re leaning into transcending the species and trying to live forever. But it’s Hogwarts, not Silicon Valley, that’s the leader here. It’s possible that no series did more to normalize the human-superhuman divide than <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0545162076/?tag=slatmaga-20">Harry Potter</a></em>, which famously classified nonwizards as <em>muggles</em>. The <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_next_20/2016/09/online_harry_potter_fans_transformed_what_it_means_to_love_a_story.html">broad cultural familiarity</a> with <em>muggle </em>instilled generations of Potter fans with an idea that people are lowly humans without special powers and lesser-than, and that two appropriate responses to this hierarchy were either a Slytherian attitude of contempt or a Weasleyesque pitying admiration for all that muggles can do with their limited abilities. People don’t just have favorite humans; they have <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=my+favorite+muggle&amp;espv=2&amp;biw=1428&amp;bih=750&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiXp8fyhOfPAhXGGT4KHQzQAJgQ_AUIBigB">favorite muggles</a>.</p>
<p><em>Human</em> proliferation hasn’t only taken off because we’re more aware of our limits, though. The word has also absorbed a meaning distinct from <em>person</em>. A <em>person</em> is a complex individual, a unique intelligent thing that can be dickish or awkward or generous or some combination thereof. A <em>person </em>has a personality, and he or she is different from other people. A <em>human</em> is a more basic, simple creature. A <em>person</em> is a product of culture and experience, but a <em>human</em> is a product of biology and evolution. Maybe feeling estranged from the physical and biological worlds has led a lot of people to decide that on some level, humans have more in common than people do. In an age of charged identity politics, that deeper connection also makes <em>human </em>a decidedly uncontroversial and accurate descriptor. Unlike <em>man</em>, a historically common synonym for humanity, <em>human</em> is gender-neutral. Depending on your social circle, calling someone your favorite man or favorite woman could be a little uncouth, right? But wherever you stand politically, you’re a sweetie for naming your favorite human.</p>
<p>Whether we’re referring to our favorite humans, scorning a puny human brain, or marveling at tiny human babies, this colloquial trend conjures a human as a simple, humble thing, either praiseworthy for its purity or pathetic in its limitations. In an era when we’re constantly in touch with more flawless, consistent, and powerful machines and creatures, it’s tough to forget the fact of our biological existence. Say what you will about humans; they have an analog charm. To call one another <em>human </em>is to assert that, for better or worse, the meatspace is where we belong.</p>Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/20/people_keep_saying_human_why.htmlSeth Maxon2016-10-20T13:30:00ZLifeWhy Do People Keep Talking and Joking About
<em>Humans</em>?241161020001languageSeth MaxonLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/20/people_keep_saying_human_why.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy do people keep talking and joking about “humans”?Do you have a favorite human? Need to feel like a human? Are you your doggie’s human? What’s up with that?David McNew/AFP/Getty ImagesPeople dressed as robots at the Halloween Carnaval on Oct. 31, 2015, in West Hollywood, California.Inside Locker Rooms and Other Male Spaceshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/19/locker_rooms_can_reek_of_toxic_masculinity_or_encourage_sensitive_introspection.html
<p>Locker rooms have gotten a bad rap lately; one half-expects a forthcoming tweet from <a href="http://www.lockers.com/">Lockers.com</a> distancing itself from Donald Trump’s comments and avowing its corporate respect for all women.</p>
<p>First, let’s dispense with what should be obvious to anyone positioned outside of a certain basket: Trump’s claims to Billy Bush, if true, constitute an admission of sexual assault; even if they were said in private, with the disclaimer of their being hyperbolic “locker-room talk,” the sentiments and language are inappropriate for a potential president who would have the world’s most powerful bully pulpit; they’re of a piece with Trump’s countless public denigrations of women, despite his protestations that campaigning has changed him; and the same widespread horror should have greeted his equally distasteful opinions of Mexicans, Muslims, black Americans, his political opponents, their wives, John McCain, etc.</p>
<p>What I suspect is most shocking to people isn’t Trump’s diction per se, but that his private self (or at least his performative private self) is not, in fact, a toned-down version of his stage persona. I long believed this, or hoped it was true; how else could he have survived in liberal-elite Manhattan social circles for so long?</p>
<p>No, what’s surprising is that Trump’s off-camera personality can be even <em>worse </em>than the as-seen-on-TV version. But this makes sense, at least in the context of the Trump-Bush recording, for male-only conversation tends to amplify masculine vulnerabilities.</p>
<p>Real locker rooms, as opposed to the luxury bus Trump and Bush were on, reek of testosterone and sweat and flatulence. Saggy paunches and unruly body hair and flaccid penises, typically sucked in and tamed and concealed, are visible. Straight men often feel able to let down one set of guards—namely, their attempts to impress women—while simultaneously raising a different one: their innate competitiveness with one another (it doesn’t help that they likely just played a sport in which one was declared the victor and one the loser). Their fear that their male rivals are stronger is compounded by their anxiety that, when literally and figuratively naked, with no societal accoutrements of power to prop them up, they will be emasculated. (See Alvy Singer’s explanation in <em>Annie Hall</em> as to why he didn’t take a shower at the tennis club: “I don’t like to show my body to a man of my gender.”) It’s the one place men routinely take stock of other men’s anatomies, and with so many of them on display, sexual braggadocio becomes the compensatory vocabulary of those insecurely eager to prove their virility (and their heterosexuality).</p>
<p>Yet there’s a sweeter-smelling male space Trump has never set foot in. The further I get from high school locker rooms, the more often I’ve found myself in conversations with men who embrace their vulnerability, who speak sensitively about their insecurities, who favor self-deprecation over self-inflation. Many of these dialogues couldn’t take place in mixed-gender company; that instinct to save face in front of women remains hard to shake. But among other likeminded men, who are neither Trumpesque Neanderthals nor Bushian sycophantic enablers, a noncompetitive and introspective atmosphere can obtain.</p>
<p>My guess is that Trump’s pseudonymous Twitter supporters would call these kinds of men “cucks.” If you spend all your time within the walls of a putrid locker room, it can ruin your sense of smell. I published a novel last month, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1501107895/?tag=slatmaga-20">Loner</a></em>, about a disturbed Harvard freshman named David Federman who becomes obsessed with a female classmate and does increasingly horrible things in his pursuit of her. Nearly every interviewer asked me what it was like to write about such a nasty character. My stock answer was that, though it wasn’t very pleasant to be inside his head, it’s nothing compared to what people who have to deal with real-life David Federmans go through.</p>
<p>I feel for the people who have to deal with Donald Trump—and even a bit for Trump himself, desperate for the approval of not just women but other men, constantly boasting of his prowess, so afraid of what he really looks like to them, out of his power suit and tie, naked.</p>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:50:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/19/locker_rooms_can_reek_of_toxic_masculinity_or_encourage_sensitive_introspection.htmlTeddy Wayne2016-10-19T14:50:00ZLifeTrump Aside, Real Male Locker Rooms Can Be Surprisingly Vulnerable, Introspective Spaces241161019001donald trumpTeddy WayneLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/19/locker_rooms_can_reek_of_toxic_masculinity_or_encourage_sensitive_introspection.htmlfalsefalsefalseReal male locker rooms can be surprisingly vulnerable, introspective spaces:"There’s a sweeter-smelling male space Trump has never set foot in. The further I get from high school locker rooms, the more often I’ve found myself in conversations with men who embrace their vulnerability, who speak sensitively about their insecurities, who favor self-deprecation over self-inflation."Darren McCollester/Getty ImagesWhat’s surprising is that Trump’s off-camera personality can be even <em>worse </em>than the as-seen-on-TV version.When Did Baked In Become So Baked In?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/14/how_baked_in_got_baked_into_political_journalism.html
<p>In what precious little downtime they have this pell-mell campaign, the commentariat is apparently relieving stress in the kitchen, gearing up for holiday sweets, or bingeing on <em>The Great British Bake Off.</em></p>
<p>Consider a few remarks from last month. On <em>RedState</em>, Jay Caruso <a href="http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/08/22/trump-supporters-polls-right-social-media-crowds-are-not/">observed</a>, “The people showing up to rallies are baked in supporters. They are people who are going to vote for Trump, no questions asked.” Appearing on <em>The PBS News Hour</em>, David Brooks <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/shields-brooks-high-stakes-debate-moderators-dead-heat-polls/">noted</a> that Clinton’s “e-mail story and the other stories are sort of baked in the cake.” The <em>Globe and Mail</em>’s John Ibbitson’s <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trumps-3-am-sex-tape-tweets-how-low-he-willgo/article32164667/">concluded</a> “the great majority of the electorate’s support appears baked in.” And as a political science graduate student <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/07/pro-clinton-group-hopes-to-win-votes-with-a-good-long-talk/">explained</a> to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>: “Partisan political preferences are so thoroughly baked in that voters may be impossible to sway.” As just these <a href="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;gl=ie&amp;tbm=nws&amp;authuser=0&amp;q=%2522baked+in%2522+Clinton+Trump&amp;oq=%2522baked+in%2522+Clinton+Trump&amp;gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.2540.10683.0.11105.28.9.0.19.0.0.289.852.7j1j1.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.RyiI8bwcQW8%23hl=en&amp;gl=ie&amp;authuser=0&amp;tbm=nws&amp;q=news:+%2522baked+in%2522+Clinton+Trump">few examples</a> suggest, <em>baked in</em> seems, well, baked into our political analysis these days.</p>
<p><em>Baked in</em>—an expression that rests on the idea that an ingredient baked into a cake is like a part inextricably incorporated into the whole—isn’t exactly new. <a href="http://quoteinvestigator.com">Quote investigator</a> Garson O’Toole <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2011-June/110087.html">traces it</a> to Walter Wriston, former head of Citibank, who used it to <a href="http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,912238,00.html">characterize</a> the inevitable consequences of late 1970s monetary policy: “It’s baked in the cake that we’re going to have a recession in 1980.” Since then, the finance community has <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=UW2Gu7l2Nn0C&amp;pg=PT25&amp;dq=%2522baked+in+the+cake%2522&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjZ_OLQttLPAhVDBsAKHe1sBB0Q6AEIHTAA%23v=onepage&amp;q=%2522baked%2520in%2520the%2520cake%2522&amp;f=false">taken up</a> <em>baked in</em> to name “projections, expectations, and other news items … already taken into account” in the market, as Investopedia <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/baked-cake.asp">explains</a>. Here’s a recent <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-deep-twitters-share-slide-could-get-with-reported-loss-of-google-other-big-bidders-2016-10-06">example</a> from <em>MarketWatch</em>: “Twitter is a stock that is priced to perfection if you consider that an acquisition by Google, if it happens, is already baked in.”</p>
<p>Companies like Google and Twitter are familiar with <em>baked in</em>, for the tech industry has also adopted the expression for features “built into” a new phone, game, or interface. These days, for instance, firms are especially, as this lead from <em>Engadget</em> <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/05/samsung-viv-acquisition/">shows</a>, eager to bake artificial intelligence into new technologies: “Just a day after Google revealed its premium Pixel phone and Google Home featuring Assistant AI baked in, Samsung is making a splash by buying up some AI power of its own.” The tech industry may have cooked up this <em>baked in </em>organically, what with its taste for <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/webwise/guides/about-cookies">cookies</a> and <a href="https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/03/breadcrumbs-in-web-design-examples-and-best-practices/">breadcrumbs</a>, but the close ties between the investment world and startup culture likely facilitated the idiom’s uptake and adaptation.</p>
<p><em>Baked in</em> puffed out in the 2010s, if the <a href="http://corpus.byu.edu/now/">News on the Web Corpus</a> is any measure. We’ve described <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/07/31/chart-of-the-day-americas-small-tax-revenues/">tax rates</a> as not baked into the Constitution, <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/10/27/141658047/david-carr-the-news-diet-of-a-media-omnivore">fact checking</a> as baked into modern reporting, and past <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1112/Clean-energy-and-the-deeper-meaning-of-hurricane-Sandy">emissions</a> as baked into climate change models. We’ve described <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/174580/death-oliver-stones-good-soviet-union-daniel-greenfield">logical fallacies</a> as baked into Oliver Stone’s storytelling and the <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/the-true-origins-of-x-men-20140526">fight against bigotry</a> as baked into Stan Lee’s storytelling. <a href="http://deadspin.com/sister-lift-confessions-of-a-former-pairs-skater-1520921789">Ice-skating culture</a>? High stress is baked in. <a href="https://techvibes.com/2014/07/18/chimp-culture-of-giving-2014-07-18">Charitable giving</a>? Efforts are afoot to bake that into Canadian culture. The <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karyn-twaronite/leading-the-way-workplace_1_b_6294356.html">inclusion of people with differing abilities</a> into work culture? We need to bake that in, too. We must even bake the abundance of <a href="http://phys.org/news/2016-01-theory-secondary-inflation-options-excess.html%23jCp">dark matter</a> into our fundamental understanding of the universe. Baked in is a metaphorical sponge cake, soaking in whatever flavor is fancied.</p>
<p>Yet it was in 2008 that baked in seemed to break into politics. Speaking to the<em> Washington Post</em>, GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/10/AR2008021002487_3.html?sid=ST2008021002855">weighed in</a> on Clinton’s chances against Obama in Virginia: &quot;What new could you possibly tell a voter about Hillary Clinton that they don't already know? On Hillary, the cake is already baked in the voter's mind.” He goes on: “The guy who isn't baked in the voter's mind is Barack Obama. At the end of the day, his issue positions would be his undoing in a state like Virginia.” That turned out <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/%23VA">not to be baked in</a>.</p>
<p><em>Baked in</em> is talky and homey, condensing the abstract concept of inevitability or irreversibility into a simple, sweet sound bite.</p>
<p>There’s also a fated quality to our use of the expression. Scandals have broken, polls have undulated, the news has been volatile, and yet, for much of the race, Clinton has seemed unable to break ahead and Trump somehow never fell through his floor of support. How are we to make sense of this? Logical dilemma, false equivalency, blind spots, confirmation bias, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992">identity-protective cognition</a>? Yes, science can provide the explanation, but metaphor helps us understand it on an immediate gut level: It’s all just so baked in.</p>
<p>And yet. As baked as the cake may be this election, one candidate is proving that not all cakes are of equal bake. <em>Baked in</em> may imply a treat, but the idiom can’t disguise how unpalatable, even toxic, the Trump campaign has become.</p>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:40:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/14/how_baked_in_got_baked_into_political_journalism.htmlJohn Kelly2016-10-14T15:40:00ZLifeWhen Did
<em>Baked In</em> Become So Baked In?241161014001languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/14/how_baked_in_got_baked_into_political_journalism.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhen did the phrase "baked in" become so baked in?Baked in is talky and homey, condensing the abstract concept of inevitability or irreversibility into a simple, sweet sound bite.Money Sharma/AFP/Getty ImagesA literal Donald Trump cake.How “Locker-Room” Became Synonymous With Dirty Talkhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/13/when_did_locker_room_become_a_dirty_word.html
<p>Donald Trump has slandered many <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html">people, places, and things</a> during his presidential campaign. Last week, he added one more to the list: the locker room.</p>
<p>“This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago,” Trump said in <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/statement-from-donald-j.-trump">a statement</a> responding to the 2005 video in which he described the privileges a “star” like him can take with women. (“<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/07/donald_trump_2005_tape_i_grab_women_by_the_pussy.html">Grab ’em by the pussy</a>. You can do anything.”) Under questioning at Sunday’s presidential debate, Trump <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/everything-that-was-said-at-the-second-donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-debate-highlighted/">quintupled down</a> on the locker room: “I don’t think you understood what was—this was locker-room talk. … Certainly I’m not proud of it. But this is locker-room talk. … I hate it. But it’s locker-room talk, and it’s one of those things. … It was locker-room talk, as I told you. That was locker-room talk.” On Wednesday, in a <em>New York Times</em> story that described Trump making <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html">unwanted sexual advances</a> on two women, the candidate said it again. “I don’t do it. I don’t do it,” he said, referring to, in the <em>Times</em>’ words, “whether he had ever done any of the kissing or groping that he had described on the recording.” He added, “It was locker room talk.”</p>
<p>While <a href="http://deadspin.com/athletes-to-trump-what-kind-of-locker-room-are-you-spe-1787618730">athletes</a> and <a href="http://www.apple.com">nonathletes</a> alike have noted that techniques for assaulting women are not in fact common locker-room conversation topics, there’s no denying the locker room is synonymous with off-color words and actions. Merriam-Webster defines the adjective <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/locker-room">locker-room</a> as “of, relating to, or suitable for use in a locker room; <em>especially</em> <strong>: </strong>of a coarse or sexual nature.” The <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> has a similar two-part definition, one that specifies which gender is likely to perpetrate locker-roominess: “Designating language, attitudes, or behaviour associated with or considered typical of a (men’s) locker room, esp. in being vulgar or coarse.”</p>
<p>The first section of both of those definitions—a way to describe stuff that happens in a locker room—was the dominant usage when changing rooms containing lockers emerged in the late 1800s and early 1900s.<em> Locker-room talk</em> was idle chatter or gossip, usually about a sport, especially golf. A 1921 story in the <em>Rochester </em>(New York) <em>Democrat and Chronicle </em>commended a magazine article that “sketches accurately and in a delightfully humorous way some of the locker-room talk that may be heard at any country club.” The <em>Los Angeles Times</em> in 1928 reported that “Wade Jones provided the local golfing bugs with some locker-room talk by defeating Gilly Eckles in the second round of the president’s cup tournament at the Oakmont Country Club layout.”</p>
<p>In 1929, the Fort Myers, Florida, <em>News-Press</em>’ delightfully named golf scribe, Jerry Diefenderfer, titled a section of a column “Locker Room Humor.” (“Dear Editor; In your opinion is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Smith">Horton Smith</a> a flash in the pan? Answer: Buddy, he’s a whole volcanic eruption.”) <em>New York Herald Tribune</em> columnist <a href="http://sports.nyhistory.org/?s=vidmer">Richards Vidmer</a> occasionally turned over his space to “Locker Room Language,” in which he quoted duffers at length. (“Someone started ribbing Dudley Roberts, who had a brilliant 66, with eight birdies, a week before, about playing with the girls,” Vidmer wrote in 1941.) A <em>Philadelphia Inquirer </em>columnist in 1934 observed that “locker room talk is the most trivial and least interesting of all conversation.”</p>
<p>But the not-in-polite-society, boys-will-be-boys sense of <em>locker-room</em> as an adjective (or <a href="http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/Attributive-Noun.htm">attributive noun</a>) was also in evidence. I searched several online databases for <em>locker-room talk</em>, <em>locker-room language</em>, <em>locker-room humor</em>, <em>locker-room jokes</em>,<em> locker-room banter</em>,<em> locker-room vulgarity</em>, and other <em>locker-room</em> terms. The earliest citation I could find alluding to the locker room as a place for casual or inappropriate speech was a 1929 United Feature Syndicate column by a former advertising executive named Gordon H. Cilley. “You may know the public pretty well, but you must remember that it doesn’t know you and you can’t talk to it off hand in locker room language,” Cilley said, advising copywriters not to dumb down their work.</p>
<p>The idea that the locker room was explicitly vulgar was close behind. In 1933, <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forum_(defunct_magazine)#Commercial_peak:_Henry_Goddard_Leach_1926.E2.80.9345">Forum and Century</a> </em>magazine panned comedian Fred Allen’s CBS radio show <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fred_Allen_Show#The_Linit_Bath_Club_Revue"><em>The Linit Bath Club Revue</em></a>, saying, “a few men’s locker-room jokes have been diluted to a bathroom atmosphere.” In 1942, syndicated columnist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westbrook_Pegler">Westbrook Pegler</a>, a noted conservative, elitist, moralizing crank, wrote this:</p>
<blockquote>
Having recently acknowledged the huge ability of the American man of big business and his value to the community in time of war or peace, I might add that he is, in his moments of social relaxation, the most poisonous and vulgar bore on earth, with a penchant for incoherent oratory larded with the catchwords of the hour, stupidly dirty and aged locker-room jokes and timeworn songs, drunkenly done.
</blockquote>
<p>As postwar American culture slowly grew more profane, and sports grew more popular, the locker room became more closely associated with bawdy speech and behavior. In 1951, the <em>Pittsburgh Press</em> wrote about the shuttering of a student humor magazine at the University of West Virginia that was “jam-packed with pungent, locker-room humor.” “It is the locker-room jokes that make him laugh,” <em>Newsday</em> columnist <a href="http://thestacks.deadspin.com/at-his-peak-jimmy-cannon-was-great-1460361438">Jimmy Cannon</a> wrote in 1958 about pitcher Warren Spahn. In 1960, Bob Hope said of foul-mouthed comedic newcomer Lenny Bruce, “Yes, I know he uses locker-room humor, but the guy is opening up new realms of comedy. Some of his stuff is brilliant.”</p>
<p>The association between sex talk and locker-room talk became explicit in the ’60s. In 1963, the <em>Sheboygan </em>(Wisconsin) <em>Press</em> reported that advice columnist Ann Landers had told a local audience that “sex used as recreation, fodder for locker-room talk or as something to hide indicates that ‘attitudes need overhauling.’ ” In 1970, a high-school student was quoted in the <em>Oil City </em>(Pennsylvania)<em> Derrick</em>: “I think the sex education program in the tenth grade is a little worthless. By the time you reach that grade, you have already heard it from locker room talk and other places.”</p>
<p>Jim Bouton’s no-holds-barred 1970 baseball memoir <a href="http://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/ball-four"><em>Ball Four</em></a> was “[b]ursting with spirited expletives, with locker room talk as frank as anything now published,” one reviewer wrote. Nixon White House dirty trickster Charles Colson <a href="http://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/10/14/Colson-Its-time-to-forgive-Nixon/8608371880000/">warned in 1981</a> about his former boss’s secret tapes: “You're going to see noble moments, you’re going to see locker room talk, you’re going to see gutter talk, you’re going to see dirty jokes, you’re going to see wise cracks, you’re going to see serious reflections—the whole range of human experience.”</p>
<p>It wouldn’t be long before <em>locker-room</em> acquired its Trump-ian usage, becoming a convenient linguistic way of diminishing or dismissing lewd behavior. In 1984, when members of an all-male club near Philadelphia were told a female reporter was at their annual luncheon, one man shouted, “Where's the pool table?” He was referring to a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheryl_Araujo">widely publicized gang rape</a> trial in New Bedford, Massachusetts. One guest, the county sheriff, told the <em>Philadelphia Inquirer</em> that “there is a place for that kind of humor because it’s basically locker-room talk.” In 1987, a prosecutor in Florida resigned after “openly and graphically” claiming to have had sex with other attorneys in his office. He ran for county sheriff anyway, telling the <em>St. Petersburg Times</em> that “voters would judge the details of his forced resignation as nothing more than ‘locker room talk.’ ”</p>
<p>That guy dropped out of his race. Trump, of course, hasn’t dropped out of his. If only he had been at Ann Landers’ talk in Sheboygan in 1963. Boys who boast about “conquests,” the 16-year-old Trump would have learned, are “selfish, inconsiderate and immature.” Inside a locker room or out.</p>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:16:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/13/when_did_locker_room_become_a_dirty_word.htmlStefan Fatsis2016-10-13T16:16:00ZLifeHow “Locker-Room” Became Synonymous With Dirty Talk241161013002donald trump2016 campaignlanguageStefan FatsisLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/13/when_did_locker_room_become_a_dirty_word.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow "locker-room" became synonymous with dirty talk:It all started in the late ’20s.Jeff J Mitchell/Getty ImagesThe world is Trump's locker room.Green’s Dictionary of Slang Comes Onlinehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/13/jonathon_green_explains_how_he_brought_his_slang_dictionary_to_the_internet.html
<p>Love the internet or see it as the devil’s playground, there’s one thing for which it seems the dream home: reference. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, all those thick, square tomes of yesteryear, in my case the three volumes that made up the 2010 print edition of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0550104402/?tag=slatmaga-20">Green’s Dictionary of Slang</a></em> are surely over. The mighty <em>OED</em>, halfway through its revision, would currently need 40 volumes. It’s not going to happen, any more than I or any publisher would consider an expanded print version of my own effort. The monster dictionaries might be good for propping up a misaligned table, but for information? We expect better and thanks to the web those of us who create reference databases can offer it.</p>
<p>When I signed on to write my dictionary in 1998, hard on the heels of its single-volume predecessor, I carefully inserted a clause in the contract: There will be an e-book. Back then no one quite knew what the term meant. For me it was everything that print couldn’t be: It was to be a website on which would be uploaded a facsimile not of the static hardback, but of my dynamic, constantly evolving research database. If I could ask for every word James Joyce uses for sex, Dickens for drunkenness, or Irvine Welsh for heroin, then so should everyone else.* If I needed to see the first recorded use of a given term, then it should be openly available. All 1,740 words for sexual intercourse: no sweat. That was the plan.</p>
<p>As we know, tell God your plans and the next thing is you’re watching them collapse. A dozen years and four publishers later, such was the crazy evolution of an industry that chose not so much to embrace the internet but to run shrieking in the opposite direction, I was informed: no e-book. Of whatever sort. And certainly no expensive website. Given that the alternative was no book of any sort, I had to give in. Like the Marx brothers gag in <em>Night at the Opera</em>, the contract was torn to pieces and while our meeting was around Christmas, there was definitely no Sanity Clause. Still, the book came out, was kindly reviewed, won a prize and even had a small reprint.</p>
<p>The e-book, which I now rechristened a website, did not disappear. I was determined. I kept working—what else could I do, my work and my life had long since folded into one another and I had no thoughts of suicide, professional or otherwise. And the web was such a glorious source of new material. Whether in neologisms thrown up by social media, or the ever-older first recorded uses that turned up in the cornucopia of newspaper databases, online lyrics sites, scripts, and so much more, how could I even think of stopping?</p>
<p>The problem was not the what, but the how. Three possibilities emerged. A new publisher, an institution, probably academic, a business backer. None of them worked. The publishers were doing e-books, but only of proven hits; institutions, certainly in the U.K., declared themselves too poor, and businesses, inevitably, were only up for the bottom line. What I needed was an old school patron, but Dr. Johnson I’m not.</p>
<p>In the end, and quite fittingly, the breakthrough came online. A tweet, right out of the blue, and with it a young programmer who offered to do the job. How much? I asked. Nothing, he replied. He admired the work and was interested in the possibilities of programming a dictionary. I pondered gift-horses and mouths, and sent him the data. It took more than two far from easy years, but we got there. The product is what <a href="https://greensdictofslang.com/">has just been launched</a>.</p>
<p>What next? We shall see. The dictionary exists in two forms: If you need no more than the word, its etymology and a definition, then worry no more, it’s free. What you get is effectively one of my single-volume dictionaries. But if you want the meat, the half-million citations, i.e. examples of actual usage offered at one per decade for as far back as I can find them for a given word or phrase, then there has to be a charge. We have tried to keep it reasonable.</p>
<p>Seeing the dictionary online, and watching users appear, make their searches and hopefully find what they wanted, merely underlines what I already knew: The internet and reference are made for each other. Research continues and every three months I shall be offering new material, whether brand-new terms, or earlier, as yet unknown examples of older ones. For subscribers we aim to offer a range of new tools for getting even more from the data. The data is so far mainstream English-language slang, but the growing importance of world English means that a place must be found for the attendant slangs too. It’s early days, but a teasing deity notwithstanding, what’s not to dream.</p>
<p><em><strong>*Correction, Oct. 13, 2016: </strong>This post originally misidentified Irvine Welsh as Irving Welsh. </em><br /> </p>Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/13/jonathon_green_explains_how_he_brought_his_slang_dictionary_to_the_internet.htmlJonathon Green2016-10-13T15:00:00ZLifeWhy Jonathon Green Decided to Launch His Slang Dictionary on the Web241161013001languageJonathon GreenLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/13/jonathon_green_explains_how_he_brought_his_slang_dictionary_to_the_internet.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy Jonathon Green decided to launch his slang dictionary on the web:“All 1,740 words for sexual intercourse: no sweat.”Photo illustration by Hugh Pinney/Getty ImagesDictionaries, encyclopedias, all those thick, square tomes of yesteryear, are surely over.Roger Angell’s Love of the Word Tatterdemalion Is Contagioushttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/11/roger_angell_taught_me_the_beauty_of_the_word_tatterdemalion.html
<p><em>On the July 21, 2014, edition of Slate’s sports podcast “Hang Up and Listen,” Stefan Fatsis discussed the writer Roger Angell's affection for the word </em>tatterdemalion.<em> Last week, the 95-year-old Angell used the word again. An updated transcript of the recording is below, and you can listen to Fatsis’ original essay <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/hang_up_and_listen/2014/07/iroquois_nationals_lacrosse_hang_up_and_listen_on_baseball_s_search_for.html">here</a>.</em></p>
<p>In 2014, Tom Verducci of <em>Sports Illustrated</em> wrote <a href="http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/22/roger-angell-tom-verducci-hall-fame">a glowing profile</a> of the incomparable baseball writer—incomparable writer, really—Roger Angell, who was <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/roger-angell-baseball-hall-fame">finally being honored</a> by the Baseball Hall of Fame. Angell was 93 years old and, we learned, still showing up an hour or two a day at the <em>New Yorker </em>offices to peruse fiction submissions or write the occasional piece about baseball or aging or, let’s be blunt, death. His most recent effort—and with Angell they never seem like effort, but of course they’re Herculean, each and every one—was a brief eulogy for the bald, bowling ball-bellied baseball lifer Don Zimmer. It started thusly: “Don Zimmer, who died yesterday at eighty-three, was an original Met and an original sweetie pie. His sixty-six years in baseball were scripted by Disney and produced by Ken Burns.”</p>
<p>Before that, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/02/andys-haikus">haikus about his dog</a>, Andy. Before that, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/three-at-a-time">on triple plays</a>. Before that, a wry little meditation on a photograph, shot by his stepfather, E.B. White, of a 10-or-so-year-old Roger <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/olden-opener">pitching to his mother</a>, Katharine White. Before that—and all of this in six months, from a man in his 90s—before that, “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/17/old-man-3">This Old Man</a>,” 5,175 words about what it’s like to be a man in his 90s. Here’s how that one began:</p>
<blockquote>
Check me out. The top two knuckles of my left hand look as if I’d been worked over by the K.G.B. No, it’s more as if I’d been a catcher for the Hall of Fame pitcher Candy Cummings, the inventor of the curveball, who retired from the game in 1877. To put this another way, if I pointed that hand at you like a pistol and fired at your nose, the bullet would nail you in the left knee. Arthritis.
</blockquote>
<p>Every hubristic sports writer has read Roger Angell and thought: “Boy, I wish the place I work would let me write like that.” Or: “If the place I work let me write like that I know I could.” Or: “I wonder when Roger Angell will die so I can try to write like that.” But none of us can or will write like that, and we all hope Roger Angell never dies, though he is intensely aware—5,175 words aware—that one day, sooner rather than later, he will. “It shouldn’t surprise me,” Angell wrote, “if at this time next week I’m surrounded by family, gathered on short notice—they’re sad and shocked but also a little pissed off to be here—to help decide, after what’s happened, what’s to be done with me now.” In addition to Candy Cummings, Angell name-checked Derek Jeter and Robinson Cano, and quoted Casey Stengel. His lineup card of baseball predeparted included Bart Giamatti and Dan Quisenberry.</p>
<p>Open to any page in any book collection of Angell’s baseball writing and you will find a sentence worth reading aloud and reading again, and you’ll peel a mental Post-it to copy that one someday. I’m trying to copy him here—slightly arch, gliding along, commas in tow, a quick punch at the end. You’ll also find a word that will stop you cold, because of its context or simply its existence. One such moment came for me in December 1987, while reading “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1987/12/07/get-out-your-handkerchiefs">Get Out Your Handkerchiefs</a>,” a recap of the Minnesota Twins-St. Louis Cardinals World Series six weeks prior and the season that produced it. Here’s the passage:</p>
<blockquote>
The semi-anonymous fifth-place Pirates were in fact a rising and spirited club by the end of the season, but this sort of anarchic downthrowing of a champion by some sansculotte band is standard September melodrama, of course. The lowly, tatterdemalion Mets used to do it all the time, and I can still remember how much fun we had back then, when defeats almost went unnoticed and each little win was like a party.
</blockquote>
<p>Nope, not <em>downthrowing</em> or <em>sansculotte</em>, though those are pretty great too. The word was <em>tatterdemalion</em>. I had to look it up. <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tatterdemalion">A person dressed in ragged clothing</a>. Being in a decayed state or condition. Broken-down, dilapidated. Beggarly, disreputable. Dates to 1608, according to the <em>OED</em>. From <em>tatters</em> or <em>tattered</em>; “<a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tatterdemalion">ending unexplained</a>.” I joked about the word in a letter to a friend, signing off “Never tatterdemalion.” But it stuck. It’s my Roger Angell word, my point of connection, my personal tribute. I put it in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Few-Seconds-Panic-Sportswriter-Plays/dp/0143115472">my last book</a>—“I lace up the tatterdemalion Umbro soccer cleats that I’ve had since college, the right toe unglued from the sole”—and also later in a <strong><em>Slate</em> </strong>piece about the NFL, where I referenced “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/features/2010/nfl_halftime_report/how_donovan_mcnabb_is_like_jake_plummer.html">the lowly, tatterdemalion Lions</a>.” I thanked Angell that time.</p>
<p>But it turns out that Angell loves <em>tatterdemalion</em> as much as he made me love it. He appears to have first labeled the New York Mets that in October 1973. “<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=TbP0AQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT507&amp;lpg=PT507&amp;dq=roger+angell+mets+redux&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ksLOffcHUt&amp;sig=qdho4p71t7YeTVrdkEC8jcrEq5w&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjm1P-oksnPAhWLPD4KHYOSBDgQ6AEIHDAA#v=snippet&amp;q=mets%20redux&amp;f=false">Mets Redux</a>” begins (with a terrific opening line):</p>
<blockquote>
All sporting memories are suspect—the colors too bright, the players and their feats magnified in our wistful recapturing. The surprising rally or splendid catch becomes incomparable by the time we fight free of the parking lot, epochal before bedtime, transcendental by breakfast. Quickly, then, before we do damage to the crowded and happy events of the late summer and early autumn, it should be agreed that this was not absolutely the best of all baseball years. The absorbing, disheveled seven-game World Series that was won by the defending Oakland A’s, who had to come from behind to put down the tatterdemalion Mets, was probably not up to the quality of the seven low-scoring games contested by the A’s and the Cincinnati Reds last year, or even comparable to three or four other classics we have been given in the past dozen Octobers.
</blockquote>
<p>The 1973 Mets were tatterdemalion because, Angell noted, they “finished their season with a won-lost percentage of .509, the lowest ever recorded by a winner or demiwinner in either league.” (<em>Demiwinner</em>! Because baseball had gone to two divisions per league.)</p>
<p>In April 1978, Angell described “Bill Veeck’s <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1978/04/24/voices-of-spring">tatterdemalion free-swingers</a> in Chicago.” In November 1980, he mentioned A’s pitcher Mike Norris’ “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1980/11/24/pluck-and-luck">tatterdemalion major-league record</a>.” Then came the “lowly, tatterdemalion Mets” of 1987. Then, according to my search of the magazine’s online archive, there was a quarter-century benching—followed by a late-innings rally. In a <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/mo-town">September 2013 post</a> about the final game of the career of Mariano Rivera, the beloved closer for New York’s other team, at the desultory end of a forgettable season, Angell assessed the Yankees’ fate:</p>
<blockquote>
Sagging in the tatterdemalion struggle for that second American League Wild Card in the last week of the season, they will be caught by the heels in the next day or two and gobbled up by the statistical werewolf.
</blockquote>
<p>Angell is 95 now, and still writing better than you or I ever will. Last Thursday, he wrote “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/good-night-mets-roger-angell">Good Night, Mets</a>,” 682 sweetie-pie words about the team’s season-ending National League wild-card loss to the San Francisco Giants the night before. Titularly, the piece was a bookend, minus the palindrome, to “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1986/12/08/not-so-boston">Not So, Boston</a>,” Angell’s epic 1986 account of the epic fall of the Red Sox to the Mets. But it was the lede, or more precisely the eighth word, that bolted me upright, caused my eyes to bulge, and sent blood surging skullward:</p>
<blockquote>
Good night, Mets. We’ll miss you.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Tatterdemalions lost their one-game wild-card playoff to the visiting Giants, 3–0, last night, and drifted home, their season done.
</blockquote>
<p>The Mets weren’t <em>just</em> tatterdemalion<em> </em>anymore. They were <em>the </em>uppercase<em> </em>Tatterdemalions! My first thought: Roger Angell is trolling me. Then I called him. “I don’t remember ever using it before,” Angell said of the magic word. When, like some linguistic stalker, I rattled off the citations, he replied, drolly, “I didn’t know someone would be out there keeping track of my usage of a word over the years.”</p>
<p>I think Angell might have been genuinely embarrassed to have unsheathed an unusual word frequently enough for someone to notice—if six times over 43 years and hundreds of thousands of written words counts as frequently. (Angell was first published in the<em> New Yorker</em> in 1944 and started writing about baseball there in 1962, the Mets’ first season.) He isn’t alone in using <em>tatterdemalion</em> in the magazine; <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/02/23/the-daughters-of-the-moon">Italo Calvino</a>, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/05/25/avas-apartment">Jonathan Lethem</a>, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/11/07/chloes-scene">Jay McInerney</a>, and, in his <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1965/01/23/a-sense-of-where-you-are">famous profile</a> of Bill Bradley, John McPhee have done so too. Still, Angell told me, “I’ve got to stop using it. It’s off my list forever.”</p>
<p>The last thing I want is to be responsible for breaking up Roger Angell and <em>tatterdemalion</em>. I begged him not to dump this beautiful word, his use of which has meant so much to me. “It’s a great compliment, I guess,” he finally said. Yes, Roger, it is. May your Mets be tatterdemalion forever. And may the statistical werewolf pass you by.</p>Tue, 11 Oct 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/11/roger_angell_taught_me_the_beauty_of_the_word_tatterdemalion.htmlStefan Fatsis2016-10-11T13:30:00ZLifeRoger Angell’s Love of the Word
<em>Tatterdemalion </em>Is Contagious241161011001languagewritingStefan FatsisLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/11/roger_angell_taught_me_the_beauty_of_the_word_tatterdemalion.htmlfalsefalsefalseRoger Angell's love of the word "tatterdemalion" is contagious:It’s my Roger Angell word, my point of connection, my personal tribute.Neilson Barnard/Getty Images for the New YorkerWriter Roger Angell attends the 2009 New Yorker Festival on Oct. 16, 2009, in New York City.The Other, Other F-Wordhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/10/is_fat_becoming_a_swear_word_thanks_to_donald_trump_s_fat_shaming.html
<p>Donald Trump has a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/">long history</a> of disparaging women, but his recent comments on how Alicia Machado “<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/27/trump_says_alicia_machado_gained_a_massive_amount_of_weight.html">gained a massive amount of weight</a>” have sparked a national conversation on <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-alicia-machado-hillary-clinton-presidential-debate-rosie-odonnell-fatness-weight-fat-shaming-amy-farrell/501827/">fat-shaming</a>. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2008.636/full">Research</a>, not to mention the lived experience of so many individuals, documents the serious <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/sunday-review/the-shame-of-fat-shaming.html">damage</a> weight-based abuse and prejudice can wreak, from clinical depression to employment discrimination. Our increased awareness of, and, if current discourse is any measure, cultural sensitivity to the effects of fat-shaming thus raises the linguistic question: Is <em>fat</em> becoming a swear word?</p>
<p>Opinions vary on whether slurs, such as <em>fat</em>, behave in the same ways swear words like <em>fuck</em> or <em>shit</em> do. But in his new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465060919/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>What the F</em></a>, professor Benjamin Bergen views profanity more broadly as the taboo vocabulary a culture deems offensive. He <a href="http://observer.com/2016/09/why-you-should-give-a-shit-about-the-science-of-swearing/">organizes</a> this vocabulary according to a useful heuristic: the “Holy Fucking Shit Nigger Principle.” <em>Holy</em> comprises swears that concern the sacred, <em>fucking </em>the sexual, <em>shit </em>the bodily, and <em>nigger</em>, the derogation of social groups. Different cultures find these different categories more or less taboo: Some of the strongest swears in Quebecois, as linguist John McWhorter observed in an <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2016/05/benjamin_bergen_on_profanity_and_the_brain.html">interview</a> with Bergen, favor the <em>holy</em> vein; in Taiwanese, it’s <em>fucking</em>.</p>
<p>Attitudes about the offensiveness of swears also change over time. Sacred-based swears, such as a taken-in-vain <em>Jesus Christ</em>, are vastly milder to most English speakers today than they were centuries back, while group-based slurs, like <em>fag</em>, say, now often cause the greatest injury. As timely evidence of this trend, take the discovery of Twitter hate speech that <a href="http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/02/racist-trump-fans-are-using-a-special-code-on-twitter-so-they-dont-get-suspended-6165855/">codes</a> slurs (e.g., <em>skype</em> = <em>Jew</em>) so their users can avoid account suspension—not over a <em>fuck</em>, <em>Jesus</em>, or <em>dick</em>, but over racial epithets. While no <em>cocksucker</em> or <em>Kike</em>, the word <em>fat</em>, in its power to denigrate a group of people, appears to be headed in this direction.</p>
<p>Consider <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/07/politics/donald-trump-rosie-odonnell-feud/">just two</a> of the weight-based insults Donald Trump has heaped on Rosie O’Donnell in their long-running feud: “a big, fat pig” and “my nice little fat Rosie.” On the surface, Trump’s use of <em>fat</em> sounds like schoolyard name-calling (a childishness he may actually hide behind in self-defense). But, under the skin, these <em>fat</em>s reek with a patronizing and dehumanizing sexism, smelling all the more rotten when we consider them alongside other <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/22/what_makes_the_adjective_trumpian_so_perfect_for_the_candidate.html">Trumpian</a> descriptions of O’Donnell as a “loser” who is “out of control” and “deserves” the abuse. <em>Fat </em>on its own might sound just cruel or callow, but in Trump’s mouth, the word signals a deeper failure—of self, gender, morality, even humanity, all in one short syllable.</p>
<p>We don’t just pair <em>fat</em> with animals like <em>pig</em>, <em>cow</em>, or <em>whale</em>. We frequently use the word to intensify other swears: <em>fat ass</em>, <em>fat fucker</em>, and <em>fat bitch </em>are common examples. Try substituting more neutral terms for <em>fat</em> like <em>overweight</em> or <em>obese</em>: <em>overweight</em> <em>bitch</em> or <em>obese</em> <em>fucker</em>. Certainly people have uttered these alternatives, but they don’t seethe with the same level of contempt that <em>fat </em>does.</p>
<p>Swear words have layers of euphemistic counterparts: <em>shit</em> has the baby-talking <em>poop</em> or the scientific <em>feces</em>; <em>fuck</em>, <em>to have sex </em>or <em>bone</em>; <em>god </em>has <em>gosh</em> or, reaching back into history, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minced_oath">minced oaths </a>like ‘<em>Swounds</em>. <em>Fat</em> displays a similar behavior: It has the more colloquial <em>chubby</em>, the retail <em>plus-size </em>or <em>curvy</em>,<em> </em>and the medical <em>overweight</em> and <em>obese</em>. Many of these euphemisms, in spite of their best intentions, <a href="https://aeon.co/essays/euphemisms-are-like-underwear-best-changed-frequently">don’t escape</a> the original negativity of <em>fat</em>, which only underscores how hard it is for us to talk about weight as a culture.</p>
<p><em>Fat</em> is situated in a sweary lexical space, but is it actually offensive enough to be taboo? Words evolve: Until recently, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/24/using-gay-mean-crap-bullying-gap-people">gay</a> and <a href="http://www.r-word.org/r-word-effects-of-the-word.aspx">retard</a> were widely and casually synonymous with “stupid” or “worthless.” Social progress with respect to the transgender community has squarely moved <em>tranny</em> into the “unacceptable” column, as has the growing inclusion of persons with disabilities in the case of <em>crippled </em>or <em>mental</em>. And similar shifts are afoot for terms like <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/">illegals</a>. Societally, we are recognizing, or at least seeking to recognize, a greater range of identities and experiences than just race, sex, and creed, and this includes ability, age, mental health, immigration status, and, yes, <a href="http://www.thebodypositive.org">body</a>. As our attitudes towards such groups shift, so does the language we use to talk about them. <em>Fat</em> fits this trend.</p>
<p>As does the inevitable backlash against language policing. One tweeter <a href="https://twitter.com/freedommary/status/782270346636496896">reacted</a> to Trump’s fat-shaming of Alicia Machado: “The whole issue of political correctness is an excuse to censor speech. Fat is Fat.<strong> </strong>Skinny is Skinny. #AliciaMachado #TrumpTrain.” If we can’t call someone <em>fat</em>, what’s next? Are we not allowed to talk about <em>fat-cat </em>politicians or <em>low-fat</em> diets? Are we going to force New Belgium Brewing to change the name of its <em>Fat Tire Amber Ale</em>?</p>
<p>Such protestations overlook a few important facts. First, censorship and taboos are not the same thing. Censorship is a decision made by a person, group, or institution to suppress content deemed objectionable, such as slurs and swears, but the N-word remains taboo whether it’s censored, say, in this article or not. Second, words accommodate multiple meanings that vary across context. We can handle just fine the eschatological <em>Hell </em>alongside the interjectional <em>Hell yes! </em>We can easily distinguish between the sense and intention of calling a paycheck<em> fat </em>and calling a person<em> fat</em>.</p>
<p>But most important, words vary across speakers, too. In a <a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/589/tell-me-im-fat">counter-backlash</a>, many people are <a href="https://www.bustle.com/articles/119779-21-fat-women-on-why-theyre-not-afraid-to-say-the-f-word-photos">reclaiming</a> the word <em>fat</em>, following in the self-empowering, anti-hegemonic tradition of women who are taking back <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/gloria-steinem-urges-women-to-reclaim-the-word-bitch-a6707131.html">bitch</a> or gay people <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/domenick-scudera/reclaiming-the-gay-fword_b_1092157.html">fag</a><em>. </em>(Currently, the reclamation of <em>fat</em> prevails among women, which should remind us that <em>fat </em>is also a sexist construct.) As blogger Jes Baker explains, “We don’t need to stop using the word ‘fat,’ we need to stop the hatred that our world connects with the word ‘fat.’” If the word <em>fat</em> becomes taboo, then we’ve only acknowledged the unacceptability of <em>insulting</em> people on the basis of weight. This doesn’t mean we’ve dismantled the notion that being overweight, a physical condition, is inherently and objectively wrong or evil, a social construction. In fact, tabooing <em>fat</em> may even serve to normalize the stigma the word represents, and our euphemistic replacements, be it <em>curvy</em>, <em>overweight</em>, or<em> </em>some other<em> </em>term yet conjured up, will take on all the negativity, all the inferiority, all the insidious and toxic shame we pile on the idea being overweight.</p>
<p>The real question, then, is not whether the word <em>fat</em> can become or is becoming a swear word. It’s whether it should be. As Robert Lane Greene recently <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21708207-most-swearing-perfectly-harmless-weapons-crass-construction?fsrc=rss">observed</a> in the<em> Economist</em>, “Taboo words, ultimately, are those that people treat as taboo, the treatment itself giving them their force.” In our shaming of the word <em>fat</em>, we must seriously consider what—and whom—it is we are shaming.</p>Mon, 10 Oct 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/10/is_fat_becoming_a_swear_word_thanks_to_donald_trump_s_fat_shaming.htmlJohn Kelly2016-10-10T13:30:00ZLifeIs
<em>Fat </em>Becoming a Swear Word? And Is That a Bad Thing?241161010001languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/10/10/is_fat_becoming_a_swear_word_thanks_to_donald_trump_s_fat_shaming.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs "fat" becoming a swear word?On the "other, other F-word".Win McNamee/Getty ImagesHas Donald Trump's fat-shaming of Alicia Machado helped the word <em>fat </em>along its path to &quot;slur&quot; status?In Praise of Brangelexithttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/28/why_brangelexit_is_the_perfect_escapist_compound_for_our_troubled_times.html
<p>Angelina Jolie handed Brad Pitt the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/09/20/angelina_jolie_has_reportedly_filed_for_divorce_from_brad_pitt.html">divorce papers</a> and Twitter handed us <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Brangelexit">#Brangelexit</a>: the <em>exit</em> of the supercouple <em>Brangelina</em>. But for as much as it may make language-peevers and gossip-scolds bristle, this coinage doesn’t deserve our judgment like some botched Botox job. It should get a Hollywood star.</p>
<p>Let’s first admire the construction. Like a rare lexical double rainbow, <em>Brangelexit</em> is a portmanteau, or word blend, built on another portmanteau: It joins <em>exit </em>with <em>Brangelina</em>, which, as superfans have drooled over for the past decade, marries together <em>Brad</em> and <em>Angelina</em>. This construction shows off the wonders and complexity of English compounding as well as our incredible talent for so fluently decoding such Neapolitan neologisms as <em>Brangelexit</em>. The word also<em> </em>strides down the red carpet—that is, of the tongue—much more gracefully than an early competitor that turned heads on social media, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BrexPitt">#BrexPitt</a>, for all its phonetic, door-slamming force of “Gather up your belongings and get out, Brad.”</p>
<p>Also unlike <em>BrexPitt</em>, <em>Brangelexit</em> preserves that key portmanteau, <em>Brangelina</em>, which came to embody all that is “extravagant, beautiful, sexy, romantic, exotic, adventurous,” as <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/09/brangelina-brad-pitt-angelina-jolie-divorce-vanessa-diaz-interview-celebrity-marriage-nicknames/501050/">Vanessa D&iacute;az explained</a> in the <em>Atlantic</em>. Just as <em>Brangelina </em>signified something bigger than Brad and Angelina, so <em>Brangelexit</em> conveys the loss of something more than their high-profile marriage. It’s not just the breakup of Brangelina: It’s the breakup of the idea of <em>Brangelina</em>.</p>
<p>And <em>Brangelexit </em>isn’t<em> just </em>another vapid contrivance or hashtag hot take. It’s an informed and worldly lexeme, one that subscribes to, and can boast it actually reads, the<em> Economist. </em>The compound’s -<em>exit </em>alludes to <a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/b/brexit.html">Brexit</a>, <em>Britain</em>’s vote to <em>exit</em> the European Union, the summer blockbuster of both news and <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/29/why_has_brexit_sparked_an_explosion_of_wordplay.html">Twitter wordplay</a>. This makes <em>Brangelexit</em> a triple threat of glamor, cosmopolitanism, and intelligence, not to mention that the <em>ex-</em> in <em>exit </em>delivers the added punch of the <em>ex- </em>in <em>ex-husband.</em></p>
<p>Who says celebrity gossip is simply a waste of time? <em>Brangelexit</em> is doing English word formation a valuable service. It’s proving the utility of <em>-exit </em>to convey “a sudden, unexpected, or premature departure” outside of political contexts (cf. <em>Grexit</em>, <em>Czexit</em>). This further establishes -<em>exit</em> as a so-called <a href="https://arnoldzwicky.org/2010/01/23/libfixes/">libfix</a>, a kind of freed-up, word-forming element. It may even be generating a corollary meaning all its own: “the supercouple split.” Should George and Amal Clooney’s marriage take a bad turn, God forbid, we might be headed towards a <em>Gamalexit</em>. That’s a tad inelegant, but <em>Brangelexit </em>still<em> </em>opens up <em>-exit</em> for new uses.</p>
<p>Well-formed, rich in meaning, allusive, and potentially useful, <em>Brangelexit</em> has its lexical luster. But like so many word coinages, and celebrity marriages, the word will likely burn out. Its 15 minutes of fame will come and go, its hashtag will be cached online like some quaint memorabilia, its Hollywood star walked over by so many unknowing feet. In a year that gave us serious political realities like Brexit, <em>Brangelexit</em> is ultimately a trivial bit of wordplay. And yet it’s precisely the frivolity of <em>Brangelexit</em> that offers some much-needed escapism amid an over-newsed, over-Trumped 2016—just as, at least for the starstruck among us, the idealized romance and lifestyle represented by <em>Brangelina </em>spread some glitter over our tedious, workaday lives.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/b/brangelexit.html"><em>Read more in </em><strong><em>Slate </em></strong><em>about #Brangelexit.</em></a></p>Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:51:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/28/why_brangelexit_is_the_perfect_escapist_compound_for_our_troubled_times.htmlJohn Kelly2016-09-28T14:51:00ZLifeIn Praise of
<em>Brangelexit</em>241160928001languagebrangelexitJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/28/why_brangelexit_is_the_perfect_escapist_compound_for_our_troubled_times.htmlfalsefalsefalseIn praise of "Brangelexit":Just as Brangelina signified something bigger than Brad and Angelina, so Brangelexit conveys the loss of something more than their high-profile marriage.Martin Bureau/AFP/Getty ImagesBrangelina no more.Weird’s Worthhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/27/how_weird_became_an_economic_strategy_for_hipster_cities.html
<p>About 15 years ago, an independent bookseller in Texas went to battle against the specter of mega-bookstore invasion. His weapon of choice was something a purveyor of books knew best: a word. And the word was <em>weird</em>.</p>
<p>KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD was coined by the librarian Red Wassenich while on the phone with a local radio station<strong>. </strong>But the phrase was adopted when Steve Bercu, owner of the Austin, Texas, bookstore Book People, needed a slogan to rally objection to a planned Borders store a few blocks away. Bercu convinced John Kunz, the owner of nearby Waterloo Records, to join the keep-it-local cause. They printed 5,000 bumper stickers urging citizens to KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD and flanked the message with their business logos. The stickers flew off the shelves. And the Borders bookstore was never built in downtown Austin.</p>
<p>“WEIRD resonated really well here,” said Bercu. “The point was to support local businesses. Everyone got it immediately.” Today, Bercu estimates that he’s given away more than 300,000 stickers. Indeed, the success of KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD inspired independent business communities from Oregon to California and beyond. Why has <em>weird</em> spread so far?</p>
<p>Terry Currier, the owner of Portland, Oregon’s Music Millennium store, was a frequent visitor to Austin and a longtime friend of Kunz’s. As he worried about the future of his city, the <em>weird</em> war in Austin struck a chord. “I wanted some kind of campaign to champion local businesses,” said Currier. “Portland has always been an entrepreneur’s town with a lot of open-minded and creative people.”</p>
<p>He started off with 1,000 KEEP PORTLAND WEIRD bumper stickers and ran a newspaper ad with a simple image of the sticker—no business logo, no explanatory message. “Then the thing just kept growing and growing, to the point where news commentators used the motto and it showed up in the papers and pictures,” he said. Now it’s entrenched in the local culture and immortalized in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B019C447AS/?tag=slatmaga-20">Portlandia</a>.</em></p>
<p>Seven hundred plus miles to the south—and just a little left—Bookshop Santa Cruz owner Neal Coonerty printed KEEP SANTA CRUZ WEIRD stickers after meeting Bercu at a booksellers’ conference. “We don’t want to become just another gentrified suburb of Silicon Valley,” said Coonerty. “The main street of our downtown is more than just an exchange of goods, it’s where the community expresses itself with street artists, political tabling, and one-of-a-kind parades. We want to make sure it stays that way.”</p>
<p>Not everyone wants to be weird, though. Santa Cruz city supervisor Ryan Coonerty, Neal’s son, says he regularly hears complaints that promoting <em>weird</em> is akin to encouraging criminal or antisocial activity. Some local business owners prefer to be known as “safe and sane.”</p>
<p>Across the river from the weirdness in Portland, the locals have lobbied to <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/wittcogmbh/6335038309">KEEP VANCOUVER NORMAL</a>. In the flatlands of West Texas there’s a call to <a href="http://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/entertainment/ktab-4u/help-keep-abilene-boring-at-monks-coffee-shop">KEEP ABILENE BORING</a>. Just north of Austin, the Dell Computer headquarters wants to <a href="http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/texas/entry/keep_round_rock_mildly_unusual/">KEEP ROUND ROCK MILDLY UNUSUAL</a>. On the other hand, in the home of two infamous shootouts, natives recognize their destiny is to <a href="http://cgwaco.com/gifts/keep-waco-wacko-throwback">KEEP WACO WACKO.</a> And there’s a <a href="http://keepitquerque.org/">KEEP IT QUERQUE</a> crusade in New Mexico.</p>
<p><em>Weird</em> campaigns have spread to communities in more than a dozen states. What do they all have in common? The cities have fewer than 1 million people, but most are growing. Many are state capitals or county seats and most have a vibrant arts scene. They all seem to have a strong sense of what makes them unique, and a grassroots urge to stay that way.</p>
<p>That cities cast their lot with <em>weird</em> has an uncanny connection back to the word’s origin. The Old English <em>wyrd</em> has roots in the base <em>wer </em>(meaning “to become” or “to turn”) and was once connected to the idea of destiny. In Norse mythology, Wyrd (<em>Ur&eth;r)</em> is one of the three female fates who shape the lives of every child. But <em>wyrd</em> was going extinct when Shakespeare cast the Three Wyrd Sisters in the role of the fates who prophesied that Macbeth would murder Scotland’s king. To provide context for audiences unfamiliar with the word, the Bard created “double, double toil and trouble” sorts of activities for the sisters; that link to the supernatural followed <em>wyrd</em> thereafter.</p>
<p>Poets like <a href="http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/2779/">Shelley</a> and <a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/lamia-part-i/">Keats</a> reinterpreted <em>weird</em> to describe the odd or strange. And then <em>weird</em> went into hibernation through much of the 20<sup>th</sup> century, until popular culture revived it yet again. In the 1980s, the likes of “Weird Al” Yankovic and the movie <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002GQMA4A/?tag=slatmaga-20">Weird Science</a></em> imbued the word with a quirkier, goofier meaning. Mark Moran and Mark Sceurman have tracked weirdness for 20 years, with published guides to weird attractions and a History Channel series called <em>Weird U.S.</em></p>
<p>Despite its countercultural bona fides, weird has economic power. From indie booksellers to microbrews and real estate, leveraging quirkiness is good for business. Weird isn’t just a way of being, it’s an economic strategy, one that has the rough-hewn, indie-rock air of an anti-strategy. Marketing specialist Seth Godin promotes weirdness as a way to celebrate choice and push back against mass production and consumption in his book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1936719223/?tag=slatmaga-20">We Are All Weird</a></em>. “The opportunity of our time is to support the weird, to sell to the weird and, if you wish, to become weird,” he writes.</p>
<p>Underneath it all, the affinity for weirdness harkens back to the oldest origins of <em>wyrd,</em> which conjured mastery over the fates. From booksellers in Austin to hippies in Portland to squares in Abilene, we all want to control our own destinies. Is that so weird?</p>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/27/how_weird_became_an_economic_strategy_for_hipster_cities.htmlElizabeth DevittJuli Berwald2016-09-27T13:30:00ZLifeWhy Cities Like Austin and Portland Are So Enamored of the Word
<em>Weird</em>241160927001languagecitiesElizabeth DevittJuli BerwaldLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/27/how_weird_became_an_economic_strategy_for_hipster_cities.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy cities like Austin and Portland are so enamored of the word "weird":Despite its countercultural bona fides, weird has economic power. From indie booksellers to microbrews and real estate, leveraging quirkiness is good for business.Amy's Ice Cream, AustinAustralian National Dictionary Reports Australia Invented an ... Interesting ... Curse Wordhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/23/apparently_austrialia_invented_the_word_fuckwit.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/09/14/the-first-fuckwit/#more-4531">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language,</a> a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>The recent launch of the second edition of the <a href="https://blog.oup.com.au/2016/07/13/introduction-to-the-australian-national-dictionary-second-edition-part-one/"><em>Australian National Dictionary</em></a> gave me a chance to indulge in my longtime hobby of <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/dont-show-your-mother-your-penis-swears-in-a-19th-century-tibetan-and-newar-phrasebook/">looking up the swear words</a>. I’m looking forward to sharing some of my favorite homegrown colorful language in a future post, but I want to start with an entry that gives me the kind of pride that others expended on the Olympic Games last month.</p>
<p>The entry for <em>fuckwit</em> (p. 647) includes the note:</p>
<blockquote>
Used elsewhere but recorded earliest in Australia
</blockquote>
<p>That’s right. Australia is the home of the fuckwit. The earliest citation in the<em> AND </em>and the <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> is from Alex Buzo’s 1970 play <em>The Front Room Boys</em>. The earliest non-Australian citation in the<em> OED</em> is from a 1992 article in <em>Making Music</em> magazine from America.</p>
<p>The second edition of the <em>AND </em><a href="http://australiannationaldictionary.com.au/index.php">expands</a> the citations for<em> fuckwit</em>, makes a clearer distinction between nominal and adjectival use, and (most importantly) adds an earlier citation for <em>fuckwitted</em>. Here are the entries, along with the earliest few citations:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>A. N. A fool, an idiot</strong>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>1969</strong> A. Buzo Front Room Boys (1970) 89 ooh, temper! Well, ta-ta for now, fuckwit.
<br />
<strong>1970</strong> D. Williamson Coming of Stork (1974) 5 ‘I’m a trance marketing executive…’ ‘You’re a fuckwit’
<br />
<strong>1977</strong> Southerly i. 48 I object to trendy words like fuckwit and avoid it even in Scrabble.
<br />
<strong>1980</strong> F. Moorhouse Days of Wine &amp; Rage 79 The present government consists of the finest set of fuckwits seen since federation.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>B. adj. Stupid, foolish, idiotic</strong>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>1979</strong> Meanjin 464 It sounded like a load of fuckwit shit to me
<br />
<strong>1993</strong> Picture (Sydney) 27 Oct. 25/5 An interesting Seppo has taught his pet… to roll over, play dead, walk up a ramp, and stand on a&nbsp; barrel. Big fucking deal, you say, any fuckwit dog can do that.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Derivative: fuckwitted adj.</strong>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>1972</strong> J. Hibberd Stretch of Imagination (1973) 20 you two-timing, fuck-witted mongrel of a slut.
<br />
<strong>1973</strong> D. Williamson Coming of Stork (1974) 152 That fuckwitted agent of yours is really driving me right off my brain.
</blockquote>
<p>That <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Seppo"><em>Seppo</em></a>, in case you’re wondering, is a glorious example of <a href="https://blog.oup.com.au/2016/08/17/rhyming-slang-in-the-australian-national-dictionary/">Australian rhyming slang</a>; Seppo &gt; Septic Tank &gt; Yank.</p>
<p>Another change that the <em>AND</em> has made to the entry is to label <em>fuckwit</em> as derogatory. These labels <a href="https://blog.oup.com.au/2016/07/20/introduction-to-the-australian-national-dictionary-second-edition-part-two/">were omitted from the first edition based on the very Australian logic that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
There is a danger that using labels to indicate register can be overinterpretative and over-restrictive. This seems particularly true of Australian English, which allows easy movement between formal and informal usage. It should be clear from the citations if a word belongs mainly in colloquial use or to the slang of a particular group, and equally clear if it is for some reason taboo in some contexts. Labels like coarse, colloq., derog., slang, and vulgar, which tend unnecessarily to categorize, have therefore been omitted.
</blockquote>
<p>The labels Offens. and Derog. have been added to entries in the second edition of the <em>AND</em> in case you’re too much of a fuckwit to tell if something is offensive.</p>Fri, 23 Sep 2016 20:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/23/apparently_austrialia_invented_the_word_fuckwit.htmlLauren Gawne2016-09-23T20:30:00ZLifeAustralian National Dictionary Reports Australia Invented an ... Interesting ... Curse Word241160923001australialanguageLauren GawneLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/23/apparently_austrialia_invented_the_word_fuckwit.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe term “fuckwit” was apparently recorded earliest in Australia:Life goals: Learn to curse like an Australian.Photo illustration by Hugh Pinney/Getty ImagesAn expanded entry for <em>fuckwit</em> is coming to an <em>Australian National Dictionary</em> near you.Washingtonian, Lincolnian, Trumpian: Is Trumpian Destined to Become the Greatest Adjective in the Land?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/22/what_makes_the_adjective_trumpian_so_perfect_for_the_candidate.html
<p>How do you know when you’ve really made a name for yourself? Is it when your name is emblazoned in huge letters on gilded buildings? Or when it claims every column inch and chyron scroll? No, it’s when you’ve earned your own adjective: <em>Trumpian</em>, adj., “of or pertaining to Donald Trump.”</p>
<p><em>Trumpian</em> isn’t exactly complimentary, though Trump may find flattery in the brassy, outsized swagger his adjective connotes. Nor is it new to this presidential election. One early use comes from a 1988 edition of <em>Yachting </em>magazine, which <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=S7MNiZ_ohA8C&amp;pg=PA79&amp;dq=%22trumpian%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjYop37i57PAhUKL8AKHU1_B3Q4ChDoAQgaMAA%23v=onepage&amp;q=%22trumpian%22&amp;f=false">described</a> Dennis Conner’s <em>The Art of Winning</em> as “well within the Trumpian vein.” In 1989, <em>Sports Illustrated</em> <a href="http://www.si.com/vault/1989/05/22/119927/the-wheels-of-fortune-the-tour-de-trump-billionaire-donald-trumps-bike-race-through-the-american-countryside-was-a-smashing-success">observed</a> pleasant, modest communities along the route of the erstwhile <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_DuPont%23Origins_as_the_Tour_de_Trump">Tour de Trump bike race</a> as refreshingly “un-Trumpian.” Many other <em>Trumpian</em> gems bedizen the 1990s and 2000s: retail <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/1992-03-08/the-gap">tumbles</a>, affluent <a href="http://articles.philly.com/1993-04-07/entertainment/25979662_1_fatal-attraction-david-and-diana-murphy-smelly-sneakers">instigators</a>, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=cukDAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA112&amp;lpg=PA112&amp;dq=trumpian+expense+account&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=718Phic6_v&amp;sig=7FJWgJ6D7cHSIG84xYh-U_5j5Us&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj4wKOZj57PAhWkA8AKHd1RDz4Q6AEIGzAA%23v=onepage&amp;q=trumpian%20expense%20account&amp;f=false">expense accounts</a>, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=Zr0KAQAAMAAJ&amp;q=%22trumpian%22&amp;dq=%22trumpian%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwidyaiHkZ7PAhXGL8AKHfotB4I4FBDoAQg2MAY">tabloids</a>, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=8Ltq9ets9cMC&amp;pg=PT81&amp;dq=%22trumpian%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjG0sf_jJ7PAhWKJsAKHULCCNQ4FBDoAQgaMAA%23v=onepage&amp;q=%22trumpian%22&amp;f=false">noblesse oblige</a>, conspicuous <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=7PCE54PKmLoC&amp;pg=PA142&amp;dq=%22trumpian%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjt9Ka-j57PAhXrJsAKHebaCw04ChDoAQgqMAM%23v=onepage&amp;q=%22trumpian%22&amp;f=false">consumption</a>, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=DmkqhHCxIRcC&amp;pg=RA1-PA45&amp;dq=%22trumpian%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiKh5y0j57PAhWhCsAKHeuPBB0Q6AEITDAI%23v=onepage&amp;q=%22trumpian%22&amp;f=false">comb-overs</a><em>, </em><a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=i-PLg2PsNd4C&amp;pg=PR11&amp;dq=%22trumpian%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi_2fH3kJ7PAhWZOsAKHQDXBX0Q6AEIMzAE%23v=onepage&amp;q=%22trumpian%22&amp;f=false">debt</a>, and sadistic <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=5HIbAgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA137&amp;dq=sado-Trumpian&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjz8vXokZ7PAhWoAMAKHRY9DBIQ6AEIGzAA%23v=onepage&amp;q=sado-Trumpian&amp;f=false">reality TV</a> culture.</p>
<p>But the word has exploded since Trump launched his White House bid in 2015, of course, thanks to a candidacy and campaign we can only call <em>Trumpian</em>, for the lack of a better—nay, any other—word. And over the past year, its scale has become much grander, not in ritz and glitz but in concept and consequence. Today, we’re labeling <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/02/22/donald_trump_s_usage_of_the_future_conditional.html">language</a>, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/08/27/the-year-of-dark-magical-thinking-unskewed-reality-hillarys-health-and-the-rise-of-the-alt-right/">politics</a>, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-trumpian-economics/FA22E225-8653-43EA-BA81-8F0743E205F2.html">economics</a>, and, if you’re Hillary Clinton, “<a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3b4e39b20ac847b09e4a4199e8203b7e/clinton-portray-trump-economic-plans-handouts-rich">outlandish ideas</a>” <em>Trumpian</em>. We’re framing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/08/13/geno-auriemma-keeps-getting-support-for-his-strong-defense-of-u-s-womens-dominance/">eras</a> and <a href="http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-03-24-op-ed-when-terrorism-takes-over-a-presidential-campaign/">cosmologies</a> as <em>Trumpian</em>. <a href="http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/melting-pot-president-new-yorker-eamon-devalera">Neo-nativism</a> and <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ted-cruzs-drafting-of-carly-fiorina-shows-how-desperate-he-is-a7005406.html">misogyny</a>: <em>Trumpian</em>. <a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/3022431">Disease</a>, <a href="http://time.com/4136439/trump-narcissism-strange/">narcissism</a>, <a href="http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-liberal-budget-donald-trump-demagoguery">demagoguery</a>: <em>Trumpian</em>. <em>Trumpian</em> has swelled to Trumpian <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2016/05/leicester_city_was_a_5_000_to_1_underdog_how_big_of_an_underdog_is_that.html">proportions</a>.</p>
<p>What’s more, <em>Trumpian</em> enjoys some elite company in the lexicon: Many of our greatest philosophers, writers, scientists, and presidents have seen their names made into adjectives. <em>Trumpian</em> hobnobs with <em>Aristotelian</em> ethics. It sips Champagne with <em>Newtonian</em> mechanics. It flies on private jets with <em>Jeffersonian</em> democracy and <em>Dickensian</em> humor. But as the candidate already blitzes our news cycles, Twitter feeds, our every conscious moment, are we sure we want to initiate <em>Trumpian</em> into this sacred pantheon of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eponym">eponyms</a>? Are we really ready to enshrine it in these storied annals of the English language?</p>
<p>Before we panic, we should note a few key points. The first is a matter of some practical linguistics. We don’t really have much of a choice with <em>Trumpian</em>. A few writers are trying <a href="https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22trumpian+era%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=cr&amp;ei=VD7iV6iXIMGegAassLPgDQ%23q=%22trumpish%22">Trumpish</a>. This conjures up, say, <em>trampish</em> and <em>impish</em>, which some may nod at, but our camera-stealing man recedes too much into the background with the wishy-washy -<em>ish</em>. Others are using <a href="https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=%22trump-esque%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=cr&amp;ei=EUDiV6DuDYfFgAbUyI3QDg">Trump-esque</a>. Many may assent to the evocations of <em>Kafkaesque</em>, what with its nightmarish illogic and all, yet <em>Trump</em> still feels too brusque for the European &eacute;lan of <em>-esque</em>. Alternatives to <em>Trumpian</em> appear yet untried—and for good reason. The ending <em>-ic</em>, which wears a fine patina in <em>Homeric</em> and <em>Byronic</em>, sounds clunky and chemical in <em>Trumpic</em>. Again, this is not inapt in the eyes of some critics, but it’s still ill-fitting for the brazen bombast we use <em>Trumpian </em>to<em> </em>call<em> </em>up<em>. </em>So, too, with the slighting, diminutive <em>Trumpy</em>, tempting as it may be.</p>
<p>And so prevails <em>-ian</em>, that <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ian%23English">Latin-derived suffix</a> English so commonly uses to form adjectives out of proper nouns. The play and punch of word associations aside, there’s actually much more complicated historical and phonetic forces that favor the form <em>Trumpian</em>. Native English speakers—much as we recently saw with “<a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=27890">green great dragons</a>”—don’t need explicit instruction to use <em>Trumpian</em> or an explanation for why <em>Trumpic</em> and <em>Trumpy</em> sound off. Owing to the structure and development of English and our deep, subconscious knowledge of its rules, it’s no accident that <em>Trumpian</em> towers over <em>Trumpish</em> and <em>Trump-esque</em>.</p>
<p>But back to the adjectival assuagement: Let’s also not forget that <em>Jungian</em>, <em>Einsteinian</em>, <em>Austenian</em>, <em>Shakespearean</em>, and <em>Washingtonian</em> are giving a few other names the side-eye in their haut monde of modifiers. While so many of the historical and cultural figures lining the halls of English’s eponymous adjectives are positive, there is a exclusive group of AmEx Black cardholders, shall we say: <em>Draconian</em>, <em>Machiavellian</em>, <em>Faustian</em>, <em>Macbethian</em>, <em>Cromwellian</em>, <em>Stalinian</em>, <em>Mussolinian</em>, and, trumping them all, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-hitlerian-disregard-for-the-truth/2016/09/19/1603877e-7e8e-11e6-8d13-d7c704ef9fd9_story.html"><em>Hitlerian</em></a>. (The phonology of <em>Putin</em>, alas, would appear to prefer<em> <a href="https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=putinesque&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=cr&amp;ei=MEPiV5LlDsuMgAaoqZXgDw">Putinesque</a>.</em>)</p>
<p>Finally, Trump has branded skyscrapers, golf courses, steaks, a brave new world of politics, and his very own adjective, but he longer owns <em>Trumpian</em>. It belongs to the language now, continuing on not in how the epithet-slinging Trump gets to define <em>Trumpian</em>, but in how we, the speakers and writers of the English language, use it. And this is the ultimate irony of <em>Trumpian</em>.<em> </em>As the campaign careens to Election Day, Clinton supporters are frustrated at—and many journalists and historians at a loss to explain—how none of Trump’s intolerance and mendacity seems to stick to the candidate. But those ideas, those actions, so much bigger than any one man, are sticking to his namesake, <em>Trumpian</em>, in all the bluster, braggadocio, and bigotry the adjective has come to name. The success of <em>Trumpian</em> may prove its own Icarian fall.</p>Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/22/what_makes_the_adjective_trumpian_so_perfect_for_the_candidate.htmlJohn Kelly2016-09-22T14:00:00ZLife<em>Washingtonian</em>,
<em>Lincolnian</em>,
<em>Trumpian</em>: Is
<em>Trumpian</em> Destined to Become the Greatest Adjective in the Land?241160922001donald trumplanguage2016 campaignJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/22/what_makes_the_adjective_trumpian_so_perfect_for_the_candidate.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe adjective "Trumpian" may sound presidential, but in practice it's anything but:It's the perfect modifier for the candidate, even if it's not exactly flattering.Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty ImagesDonald J. Trump.Idina., Janet., and the in-Your-Face Glamor of the End-Stopped Titlehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/20/idina_janet_and_the_glamorous_practice_of_ending_album_titles_with_periods.html
<p>Idina Menzel, the Broadway chanteuse best known for her irradiated turns in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001RGG75S/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Rent</em></a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B017OJM2SW/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Wicked</em></a>, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00J2PF5FE/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Frozen</em></a><em>, </em>chose a typically in-your-face name for her new solo album, out this week. It’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JS6FDTE/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Idina.</em></a><em>, </em>with the period, a typographical flourish that cries out at once “behold,” “look no further,” and “The press will almost certainly style this title wrong, but I care not.”</p>
<p>Self-titled albums are so common as to have lost any glamor, but the full stop feels like a rare power move. The mark shuts down discussion, offering up the definitive representation of Idina-ness in album form. It also turns punctuation into adornment, as if Menzel’s name couldn’t possibly swan onto the iTunes listings without a gem or two encircling its wrists. Like a feather or tiara, the period is there because the singer’s starry presence demands something extra. It is a placeholder for whatever dramatic accent one imagines should follow the utterance of “Idina.” (A burst of colored powder? A cymbal clap? A voluptuous slow-motion hair flip?)</p>
<p>It’s also an act of escalation. Idina. shows ups Beyonc&eacute;, Adele, Ciara, and other dot-less practitioners of the divalicious surname-drop. They <em>want</em> to say their one-word personal brands are all ye know on Earth and all ye need to know. But only <em>Idina.</em> drops the mic at the end of the broadcast.</p>
<p>In 1993, amid sneers that she’d ridden to fame on her family’s matching checkered coattails, Janet Jackson released her fifth album, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000000WJI/?tag=slatmaga-20">Janet.</a></em> The end-stopped title—“Janet, period”—unyoked the singer’s image from her brothers’. She’d co-produced the album and written all its lyrics. The matter-of-factness of her punctuation registered as cool confidence—not only was <em>Janet. </em>staking everything on its leading lady, but it wasn’t worried about it.</p>
<p>In movie titles, a period neither underscores an individual star’s charisma nor, alas, implies that you’re in for a period drama. Films salt their names with punctuation to add a tinge of character, whether it’s manic (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000B5XOWA/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Airplane!</em></a>), spooky (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003916I1C/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>The Next Voice You Hear…</em></a>), or eccentric (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00622D3BS/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Crazy, Stupid, Love</em></a>)<em>. </em>The parentheses in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003MX6QPU/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>(500) Days of Summer</em></a><em> </em>speak to a sensibility that is wry, self-conscious, and full of asides to the viewer. But periods in movie titles are multivalent. The sober finality of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002M84BXU/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Good Night, and Good Luck.</em></a><em> </em>intensifies the moral seriousness of Edward R. Murrow’s signoff. It also hints at the downfall of certain American ideals at the hands of McCarthyism. <em>You can’t go back</em>, that ineluctable mark warns. Meanwhile, there’s a deadpan quality to the punctuation in Comedy Central’s one-hour special <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01H80TKNM/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Demetri Martin. Person.</em></a><em> </em>“Here I am,” Martin declares, perhaps a bit nervously. The air of resolution in the title suggests in its unexpectedness that the comic finds his membership in the “person” category ever so slightly improbable.</p>
<p>Then again, with its closing dot, the quirky Bob Dylan biopic <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B017PG8G9I/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>I’m Not There.</em></a> seems to be after a blend of unusualness and offhand frankness. This period feels understated, ironically conjuring the more exuberant punctuation the filmmakers could have used but didn’t. Like Dylan, the title comes off as reserved, a little off-kilter. It is also declarative, inarguable, and slyly self-contradictory. <em>I’m not there</em>, say the words, but the period mutters otherwise.</p>Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/20/idina_janet_and_the_glamorous_practice_of_ending_album_titles_with_periods.htmlKaty Waldman2016-09-20T13:30:00ZLife<em>Idina.</em>,
<em>Janet.</em>, and the in-Your-Face Glamor of the End-Stopped Title241160920001languagemusicKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/20/idina_janet_and_the_glamorous_practice_of_ending_album_titles_with_periods.htmlfalsefalsefalseIdina., janet., and the in-your-face glamor of the end-stopped title:The mark shuts down discussion, offering up the definitive representation of Idina-ness in album form.Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty ImagesIdina Menzel.A Biographer Got the Ultimate Revenge Against His Literary Foehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/16/a_biographer_got_the_ultimate_revenge_against_his_literary_foe.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/a-cussed-acrostic/#more-4524">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language,</a> a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>One of the more entertaining literary spats of recent times was between two biographers of the poet <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Betjeman">John Betjeman</a> (1906–84). It kicked off in earnest when A.N. Wilson, in a <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/2002/11/overdone-and-undercooked/">review at the<em> Spectator</em></a> in 2002, described Bevis Hillier’s biography of Betjeman as a “hopeless mishmash”:</p>
<blockquote>
Some reviewers would say that it was badly written, but the trouble is, it isn’t really written at all. It is hurled together, without any apparent distinction between what might or might not interest the reader. ... Bevis Hillier was simply not up to the task which he set himself.
</blockquote>
<p>Hillier’s three-volume authorized work had taken him 25 years, and he was none too pleased to see it dismissed so. Years later he described Wilson as “despicable.” But harsh words were not enough: Hillier wanted retribution, and he got his chance when Wilson undertook to write his own biography of Betjeman.</p>
<p>Under the pseudonym Eve de Harben (an anagram of <em>ever been had</em>), Hillier sent Wilson a love letter purportedly written by Betjeman to Honor Tracy, an author Betjeman had worked with at the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Admiralty-British-government">Admiralty</a>. No romantic connection had previously been drawn between them, so it was a tantalizing item.</p>
<p>Wilson believed “de Harben’s” story that she had received a typed copy of the letter from her father, who was supposedly a cousin of Tracy. Wilson duly put it in his book, which was published in 2005. Here is the love letter, with bold formatting added to mark the acrostic:</p>
<blockquote>
Darling Honor,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
I loved yesterday.
<strong>A</strong>ll day, I’ve thought of nothing else.
<strong>N</strong>o other love I’ve had means so much.
<strong>W</strong>as it just an aberration on your part, or will you meet me at Mrs Holmes’s again – say on Saturday?
<strong>I</strong> won’t be able to sleep until I have your answer.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>L</strong>ove has given me a miss for so long, and now this miracle has happened.
<strong>S</strong>ex is a part of it, of course, but I have a Romaunt of the Rose feeling about it too.
<strong>O</strong>n Saturday we could have lunch at Fortt’s, then go back to Mrs. H’s.
<strong>N</strong>ever mind if you can’t make it then.
<strong>I </strong>am free on Sunday too or Sunday week.
<strong>S</strong>ignal me tomorrow as to whether and when you can come.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>A</strong>nthony Powell has written to me, and mentions you admiringly.
<strong>S</strong>ome of his comments about the Army are v funny.
<strong>H</strong>e’s somebody I’d like to know better when the war is over.
<strong>I</strong> find his letters funnier than his books.
<strong>T</strong>inkerty-tonk, my darling. I pray I’ll hear from you tomorrow. If I don’t I’ll visit your office in a fake beard.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
All love, JB
</blockquote>
<p>To spell it out: <em>A.N. Wilson is a shit</em>.</p>
<p>When the hidden message was pointed out to him, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/28/topstories3.books">Wilson saw</a> the funny side and said the edition with the hoax letter could become a collector’s item. At first Hillier denied responsibility, but then he came clean, admitting that when a newspaper began calling Wilson’s book “the big one,” it was just too much to bear.</p>
<p>And for a choice riposte in a false love letter between men of letters, what better than a four-letter word?</p>
<p><em>This post also appeared on </em><a href="http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/a-cussed-acrostic/"><em>Sentence First.</em></a></p>Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:16:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/16/a_biographer_got_the_ultimate_revenge_against_his_literary_foe.htmlStan Carey2016-09-16T15:16:00ZLifeA Biographer Got the Ultimate Revenge Against His Literary Foe241160916001poemStan CareyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/16/a_biographer_got_the_ultimate_revenge_against_his_literary_foe.htmlfalsefalsefalseA biographer told his foe exactly what he thought of him, in acrostic poem form:Public shaming by acrostic poem.Wikipedia CommonsStatue of Sir John Betjeman at St. Pancras International StationForget the “Deplorables.” It’s the “Basket” That Makes Hillary’s Metaphor So Provocative.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/13/clinton_s_basket_of_deplorables_and_the_rise_of_the_metaphorical_container.html
<p>Hillary Clinton caused quite the stir when she recently <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/10/clinton_s_basket_of_deplorables_can_t_be_compared_to_47_percent_quote.html">remarked</a> “you could put half of Trump’s supporters in what I call the basket of deplorables.” Pundits <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-deplorables-debate-227996">picked apart</a> the political impact of the gaffe, the internet <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2016/09/10/with-basket-deplorables-quip-clinton-just-made-meme/z3tcmJ5zeKGxCUOlo19VLP/story.html">had a field day</a> with the gibe, and linguists <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/12/hillary_s_basket_of_deplorables_has_some_fascinating_legal_antecedents.html">looked at</a> the unusual nouning of the adjective <em>deplorable</em>. “Basket of deplorables” no doubt stands out for its curious wording, but the expression also features a central metaphor of our time: the organizational container.</p>
<p><em>Basket</em>, as a figure for “group,” isn’t new. In his 1916 novel <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1515094812/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Dark Forest</a></em>, English author Hugh Walpole affectionately bonded together a set of characters as a “<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sD5-CgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT133&amp;dq=hugh+walpole+the+dark+forest+basket&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=hugh%20walpole%20the%20dark%20forest%20basket&amp;f=false">basket</a>” of “crazy romantics,” as the <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> finds. Walpole’s turn of phrase, as does Clinton’s a century later, calls up <em>basket case</em>, though this <a href="http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bas1.htm">pejoration</a> for a “mentally imbalanced individual” doesn’t show up until the 1950s. The <a href="http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bas1.htm">original</a> <em>basket cases </em>involved rumors of soldiers who had lost all their limbs in World War I and thus, gruesomely, had to be transported in baskets.</p>
<p>Right after World War II, <em>basket case</em> was extended to countries unable to pay off debts, as if utterly maimed like those alleged soldiers. Finance took up the <em>basket </em>metaphor for other means around this time—and in ways that anticipate Clinton’s own <em>basket</em>. A <em>basket of goods</em>, <em>commodities</em>, or <em>currencies</em>, which take off during the midcentury, throw particular assets together for comparative evaluation. Stock traders also deal in <em>market baskets</em> and <em>basket options</em>. These financial <a href="http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/basket.asp">baskets</a> may ultimately owe some debt to the much older investment <a href="http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=egg&amp;allowed_in_frame=0">proverb</a>, <em>having all your eggs in one basket</em>. And while some business people group items together in, say, a <em>currency basket</em>, the metaphor also works in the other direction: We sort out phenomena, such as regional markets or, in Clinton’s case, the electorate, into different <em>baskets.</em></p>
<p>It’s another receptacle, though, that’s the go-to metaphor for such segmentation, especially in corporate <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=dNThzoekGQcC&amp;pg=PA429&amp;lpg=PA429&amp;dq=business+speak+buckets+baskets&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=-ww_-BzcZ7&amp;sig=_dCe0acKromvmQczBHOKn0M0NmE&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwit-bD9tInPAhVnJsAKHXd6B6IQ6AEIMzAE%23v=onepage&amp;q=business%20speak%20buckets%20baskets&amp;f=false">jargon</a>: the <em>bucket</em>. An executive may speak of divvying a budget up into sales and marketing <em>buckets </em>while an analyst, verbing the metaphor, will <em>bucket</em> brands for trend insights. Christopher Rhoads <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117495855945149853">observed</a> the buzzword back in 2007 for the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>: “the humble bucket has become a trendy fixture of corporate boardrooms and PowerPoint presentations,” “pushing aside other business-speak for describing categories or organizational units, such as silo and basket.” Companies may be favoring <em>bucket</em> over <em>basket</em> to obviate any confusion with actual baskets customers may be bringing up to the till.</p>
<p><em>Basket</em> or <em>bucket</em>, the underlying concept of the metaphorical container is spilling over into broader political discourse, as Clinton’s use of <em>baskets </em>or Sasha Issenberg’s<em> </em>2012 <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/victory_lab/2012/10/obama_s_secret_weapon_democrats_have_a_massive_advantage_in_targeting_and.html">“voter buckets”</a> suggest. And its stickiness is no accident. In fact, we can even put the reasons why into, yup, different baskets. First, receptacles like buckets and baskets are familiar and vivid. Everyone knows what a basket is and can easily conjure up an image of it. Second, the metaphor operates on a simple but effective analogy. Placing various bits into a basket or doling out fluid into buckets nicely maps onto the identification, classification, organization, and other higher-level cognitive tasks many of today’s jobs require. This points us to a third basket: utility. Modern work deals with abstract data, processes, behaviors, systems, epiphenomena; <em>baskets</em> and <em>buckets </em>help us contain, make sense of, or get control over all this complexity, making it as if we can literally manipulate and move these mental bundles around.</p>
<p>There may be yet deeper baskets, too. As more of our lives goes digital, new phenomena need names, and so we turn to our analog world to fill the gap with <em>files</em> and <em>folders</em>, with <em>inboxes</em> and <em>desktops</em>. <em>Buckets</em> and <em>baskets</em> work well in this space, semantic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph">skeuomorphs</a> whose ordinariness and domesticity lend a grounding sense of security and tangibility to our diffuse, mediated realities. The metaphor also resonates with a larger epistemological paradigm—of <em>Freaknomics</em>, <em>Invisibilia</em>, TED Talks, and the Malcolm Gladwell–ification of psychology and social science that is coming to privilege clever little “lifehacks.” <em>Baskets</em> and <em>buckets</em> also simplify, create order, and compartmentalize, picking up on our cultural obsession with <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_ladder/2016/04/power_of_habit_author_charles_duhigg_on_how_to_be_more_productive_and_motivated.html">productivity</a> and <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2016/01/marie_kondo_s_life_changing_magic_and_death.html">decluttering</a>. Metaphors like <em>basket</em> are not just <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nALGZMTeN1oC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=i+is+another&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=i%20is%20another&amp;f=false">woven into</a> the very DNA of language, but, as linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson <a href="http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/575/F01/lakoff.johnson80.pdf">maintain</a> in their seminal text <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0226468011/?tag=slatmaga-20">Metaphors We Live By</a></em>, into our very consciousness and lived reality: The “way we think, what we experience, and what we do every day is very much a matter of metaphor.” </p>
<p>Sure, calling a group of voters <em>deplorables</em> is politically problematic, in spite of the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/09/trump_s_basket_of_deplorables_hillary_clinton_was_right.html">bigotry</a> the comment was trying to highlight. But what we could be reacting to, on that more covert, subliminal level, is the metaphor itself. Though our government is polarized, our communities segregated, our everyday behaviors broken out into discrete data points for advertisers, in this era of identity politics, gender fluidity, and millennial self-invention, we no longer accept other people defining who we think we are. Only we get to decide which basket we belong in—or so we like to posture when we’re not busy categorizing everyone else. Clinton’s <em>basket of deplorables</em> doesn’t commit any crimes we don’t all do. It’s the reminder of this state of affairs that we find so deplorable.</p>Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:39:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/13/clinton_s_basket_of_deplorables_and_the_rise_of_the_metaphorical_container.htmlJohn Kelly2016-09-13T14:39:00ZLifeForget the “Deplorables.” It’s the “Basket” That Makes Hillary’s Metaphor So Provocative.241160913001languagehillary clinton2016 campaignJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/13/clinton_s_basket_of_deplorables_and_the_rise_of_the_metaphorical_container.htmlfalsefalsefalseForget the “deplorables.” It’s the “basket” that makes Hillary's metaphor so memorable.The organizational container has become a central metaphor for our time.Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty ImagesHillary Clinton is offered a literal basket at a South Carolina music festival in February.Where Did Hillary Get a Phrase Like “Basket of Deplorables”?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/12/hillary_s_basket_of_deplorables_has_some_fascinating_legal_antecedents.html
<p>Hillary Clinton's &quot;<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/10/clinton-trump-supporters-deplorable/90182922/">basket of deplorables</a>&quot; is destined to become one of the lasting catchphrases of the campaign season.</p>
<p>Clinton's use of the phrase (which she says now she regrets*) appeared in a speech delivered at a fundraiser on Friday night:</p>
<blockquote>
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it.
</blockquote>
<p>Clinton had deployed&nbsp;the word <em>deplorables</em> at least once before,&nbsp;in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqUW4ZeJssA&amp;t=2m">an interview on Israeli TV</a> on Thursday with phrasing similar to Friday night's speech:</p>
<blockquote>
If I were to be grossly generalistic, I'd say you can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I call the deplorables.
</blockquote>
<p><em>Deplorables</em>, whether or not they're in baskets, fit a pattern we've observed in the past: adjectives ending in <em>-able</em> or <em>-ible</em> that are turned into pluralizable nouns. <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31">Back in 2008</a>, I&nbsp;looked at <em>horribles </em>and <em>terribles</em> as examples of this pattern:</p>
<blockquote>
More generally, many adjectives ending in
<em>-able/-ible</em> have spawned related noun forms: think of
<em>collectibles</em>,
<em>convertibles</em>,
<em>deductibles</em>,
<em>disposables</em>,
<em> intangibles</em>,
<em>perishables</em>, and
<em>unmentionables</em>. Sometimes the noun overtakes the adjective:
<em>vegetable</em> comes from an adjective describing something that is able to vegetate, i.e., grow like a plant.
</blockquote>
<p>Pluralized <em>horribles</em> have most often occurred in the set phrase &quot;parade of horribles.&quot; For a <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/06/30/where-did-supreme-court-get-its-parade-horribles/Y0jnIscamtgPEzO0PdtL9N/story.html"><em>Boston Globe</em> column in 2012</a>, I traced the &quot;parade of horribles&quot; back to&nbsp;mid-19<sup>th</sup>-century New England, when austere parades of &quot;ancients&nbsp;and&nbsp;honorables&quot; held on Independence Day were spoofed, burlesque-style,&nbsp;as &quot;antiques and horribles.&quot; Shore towns in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have continued the&nbsp;satirical tradition, holding &quot;parades of horribles&quot; every year.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, starting in the 1920s, the phrase entered legal usage as&nbsp;a dismissive term&nbsp;for imagined&nbsp;concerns about a ruling's negative effects. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg&nbsp;memorably&nbsp;referred to &quot;the broccoli horrible&quot; in her opinion on a 2012 Obamacare ruling. (For more, see my follow-ups to the <em>Globe</em> column on <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4046">Language Log</a> and <a href="https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wordroutes/celebrating-the-fourth-with-a-parade-of-horribles/">Vocabulary.com</a>.)</p>
<p>As Nancy Friedman observed&nbsp;on <a href="https://twitter.com/Fritinancy/status/774630314207350784">Twitter</a>, there's a rhyming echo of &quot;parade of horribles&quot; in Clinton's &quot;basket of deplorables.&quot; Given Clinton's lawyerly background, it's a good guess that &quot;parade of horribles&quot; inspired her turn of phrase.&nbsp;The plural noun <em>deplorables</em>, however, has far more scattered historical usage in English than <em>horribles</em>. The <em>OED</em> defines <em>deplorables</em> as &quot;deplorable ills&quot; and provides a single citation from the journal of Sir Walter Scott:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>1828</strong> Scott
<em>Jrnl.</em> 10 Apr. (1941) 222 An old fellow, mauld with rheumatism and other deplorables.
</blockquote>
<p>From a few years later, here is an attestation&nbsp;in <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AcZEAAAAYAAJ&amp;pg=PA151">an 1831 journal entry</a> by Thomas Carlyle, pairing <em>deplorables</em> with <em>despicables</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
Of all the deplorables and despicables of this city and time the saddest are the &quot;literary men.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p>And here's <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=8VkwAQAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA116">an example from 1901</a>, in a short story published in <em>The Smart Set </em>(&quot;Brocton Mott, Realist,&quot; by Kate Jordan):</p>
<blockquote>
He turned to the east and took a Third avenue car down town. It carried a load of deplorables; all uninteresting, some offensive.
</blockquote>
<p>No word on whether the&nbsp;deplorables in that streetcar were Trump voters.</p>
<p>*As Bloix points out in the comments, Clinton&nbsp;didn't say she regrets using the phrase &quot;basket of deplorables&quot;; rather, she&nbsp;regrets saying&nbsp;that &quot;half of Trump's supporters&quot; could be put in the aforementioned basket.</p>
<p><strong><em>Update</em>: </strong><em>See <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2016/09/10/with-basket-deplorables-quip-clinton-just-made-meme/z3tcmJ5zeKGxCUOlo19VLP/story.html">this </a></em><a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2016/09/10/with-basket-deplorables-quip-clinton-just-made-meme/z3tcmJ5zeKGxCUOlo19VLP/story.html">Boston Globe </a><em><a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2016/09/10/with-basket-deplorables-quip-clinton-just-made-meme/z3tcmJ5zeKGxCUOlo19VLP/story.html">article</a> for more on the spread of the &quot;basket of deplorables&quot; meme. And now Trump has created <a href="http://time.com/4487418/trump-slams-clinton-for-deplorables-comment-in-new-ad/">a commercial</a> called &quot;Deplorables&quot; capitalizing on Clinton's controversial line.</em></p>Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:36:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/12/hillary_s_basket_of_deplorables_has_some_fascinating_legal_antecedents.htmlBen Zimmer2016-09-12T15:36:00ZLifeWhere Did Hillary Get a Phrase Like &quot;Basket of Deplorables&quot;?241160912001languagehillary clinton2016 campaignBen ZimmerLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/12/hillary_s_basket_of_deplorables_has_some_fascinating_legal_antecedents.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhere did Hillary get a phrase like "basket of deplorables"?There are legal antecedents, for one.Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesHillary Clinton.No One Cares How I Feel, According to Merriam-Websterhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/08/merriam_webster_dictionary_tweeted_no_one_cares_about_how_you_feel.html
<p>People who spend enough time on Twitter know that eventually, if they stick around long enough, hundreds of strangers will yell at them for fun. It’s the bargain you make when you sign up! And yet&nbsp;I have to acknowledge that I never expected my humiliation would come at the hands of a popular brand of dictionary.</p>
<p>Merriam-Webster is the company that publishes the widely used <em>Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.</em> Its editors characterize their approach as “descriptivist,” which means they aim to reflect language as it exists, rather than to lay down the law, usage-wise. That orientation leads them to take a variety of admirable, progressive stances on lexicographic issues.</p>
<p>Take a look, for instance, at <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/their">the entry for <em>their</em></a> in the company’s online dictionary. Merriam-Webster gives two definitions. The first is the uncontroversial use of <em>their</em> as it might appear in <em><strong>Slate</strong></em> or the <em>New York Times</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
1: of or relating to them or themselves especially as possessors, agents, or objects of an action &lt;
<em>their</em> furniture&gt; &lt;
<em>their</em> verses&gt; &lt;
<em>their</em> being seen&gt;
</blockquote>
<p>With the second definition we see Merriam-Webster’s descriptivist boundary-pushing at work, as the dictionary endorses the use of <em>their</em> as a gender-neutral singular equivalent of “his or her.”</p>
<blockquote>
2: his or her : his, her, its —used with an indefinite third person singular antecedent &lt;anyone in
<em>their</em> senses — W. H. Auden&gt;
</blockquote>
<p><strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s copy editors forbid this usage (over my strong and borderline-unprofessional <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielroth/status/699774428456968192">public objections</a>). How fearless, how forward-looking of the editors at Merriam-Webster to include it!</p>
<p>There’s a limit, though. Lots of English-speakers use <em>their</em> in a third sense: as an alternate spelling of <em>they’re.</em></p>
<p>For all its broad-mindedness, its noisy pledges of fealty to language-as-it-is-used, Merriam-Webster somehow fails to include this common usage.</p>
<p>There’s a lesson there about authority: Even when it’s doing its best to come off as chill, sometimes it has to put its foot down.</p>
<p>* * *</p>
<p>The trouble began on Tuesday evening, when my eye was caught by a tweet from the @MerriamWebster account:</p>
<p>This is a typical tweet from Merriam-Webster, which likes to show off its descriptivist approach. Most famously, in April the account posted this all-time great tweet, an elegant rejoinder to conservatives moaning about the word <em>genderqueer</em>:</p>
<p>The team that runs the account is quick, clever, alive to the fast-moving conventions of online discourse. And I am all for descriptivism! I have no truck with <a href="https://twitter.com/gabrielroth/status/687033408032223232">hidebound rules</a>. I believe that language evolves, and that a 2016 dictionary that doesn’t include <em>genderqueer</em> is failing as a dictionary.</p>
<p>And yet something about @MerriamWebster’s flaunting of its progressive credentials had begun to rub me the wrong way. The “use mad to mean ‘angry’ ” tweet, in particular, seemed lame, like a dad trying to sound cool by talking about the new Mumford and Sons album. Who doesn’t use <em>mad</em> to mean <em>angry</em>?</p>
<p>So I tweeted about it. Or rather, I started tweeting about it and then got sidetracked and started tweeting about something else, and then tried feebly to return to the original topic.</p>
<p>The next morning, whoever runs the @MerriamWebster account decided to respond to my muddled little tweetstorm like this:</p>
<p>Take a look at the retweet count. And the favs! Thousands and thousands of people, delighted at the fact that no one cares how I feel. In my Twitter mentions, people calling me “an <a href="https://twitter.com/okayultra/status/773651059868856320">abjectly disgusting creature</a>” compete for space with people earnestly <a href="https://twitter.com/alexandraerin/status/773561749236617216">setting me straight about descriptivism</a>. And still they pour in, letting me know that I got burnt or told or <a href="https://twitter.com/Deadl_E_Cheese/status/773501806823477248">owned</a>. “Wow, lots of folks here <a href="https://twitter.com/ryanbateman/status/773954483894177792">looking for blood</a>,” as one onlooker put it.</p>
<p>On the scale of Twitter eruptions, this was big but mild. And, hey, we learned something, right? This was a fun day. Some new followers (hi new followers!) plus thousands of strangers laughing at me. Lots of fun. No one cares how I feel! Good one. See, I can laugh at myself.</p>
<p>Although, since we’re here, can I ask: What was the nature of this &quot;own&quot;? Was it a clever put-down? I don’t think it was. Coming from some rando, “No one cares how you feel” would hardly merit an RT count in the five figures.</p>
<p>No, the tweet’s power comes from the way it jars with the identity of its author—just as “Delete your account” is a banality until one presidential candidate <a href="https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/740973710593654784">tweets it</a> at another. It’s not the words, it’s the shock of seeing them attributed to a well-known brand with 118,000 followers that’s usually associated with school and spelling.<strong></strong></p>
<p>As I survey the wreckage of my mentions, I find myself wistfully remembering the days when tweeting at brands was a safe, innocuous pastime. The brand is so much bigger than you, after all, that you can’t imagine it will hear you. Even if the brand were to become aware of your zingers, like a horse irked by a gnat, you assume it won’t turn on you—because, you believe, the brand is prevented by commercial imperatives from acting like a dick in public.</p>
<p>Merriam-Webster’s epic pwnage of me this week has revealed that sense of security for the fabrication that it is. It turns out that an aggressive, forward-looking brand—a venerable-but-staid brand that has turned to social media to add a bit of edginess to its image, perhaps—can indeed act like a dick in public, and will be rewarded with thousands of retweets, with celebratory gifs, with a <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/dictionaries-out-for-harambe"><em>BuzzFeed</em> post</a> chronicling its “<a href="https://twitter.com/ziwe/status/773532744332828672">iconic drag</a>.” (Half a million views and still trending.) I worry that some previously unrecognized equilibrium has been toppled, and we’re about to enter a late-late-capitalist dystopia in which brands roam the internet taking down civilians for fun. And when that day comes, we’ll look back on @MerriamWebster’s tweet and rue our LOLs, but it will be too late.</p>Thu, 08 Sep 2016 21:31:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/08/merriam_webster_dictionary_tweeted_no_one_cares_about_how_you_feel.htmlGabriel Roth2016-09-08T21:31:00ZLifeIt Happened to Me: I Was Owned by a Dictionary241160908001twitterGabriel RothLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/08/merriam_webster_dictionary_tweeted_no_one_cares_about_how_you_feel.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat it's like when @MerriamWebster owns you on Twitter"No one cares about how you feel"—Merriam-Webster, to me specifically.Tim Boyle/Getty ImagesMerriam-Webster, keeper of the sick burns.Total Sausage Party: How 20th-Century Meat-Lovers’ Dinners Became Bro-Festshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/07/the_history_and_origins_of_the_phrase_sausage_party_revealed.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/08/23/how-the-sausage-party-is-made/#more-4358">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language,</a> a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>As far as strong language&nbsp;goes, <em>sausage party</em> is hardly spicy. It’s a mild slang term for a social gathering in which men greatly outnumber women, usually expressed with a sense of bro-ish disappointment by its male members, er <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/?s=sausage+">sausages</a>.&nbsp;But a new adult computer-animated movie, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01JBARY4O/?tag=slatmaga-20">Sausage Party</a></em>, is getting a big rise out of its ham-handed innuendo.</p>
<p><em>Sausage Party</em> follows Frank, a phallic hot dog (voiced by Seth Rogen) on a dick joke–stuffed “<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1700841/">quest to discover the truth about his own existence</a>.” Its theatrical release posters relish&nbsp;in visual gags and puns:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sausage_party/">Another poster</a> runs “Get your fill,” with our frisky frankfurter smacking lips&nbsp;with&nbsp;his bun-y&nbsp;belle. The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReJOJR-DImU">trailer</a> makes clear the movie&nbsp;doesn’t scrimp on the fixings: plenty of <em>fuck</em>s and sexual slang win&nbsp;this flick an R rating in U.S. cinemas.</p>
<p>The film also features Frank’s girlfriend, a very vaginal hot dog bun (Kristen Wiig); a lesbian character anthropomorphized as a <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Taco&amp;defid=696769">taco</a> (Salma Hayek); and a douche, a <em>douche</em> douche, who breaks his nozzle (Nick Kroll). Many younger viewers, familiar with the popular <em><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douche%20nozzle">douche-nozzle</a></em> pejoration, may well&nbsp;learn&nbsp;the term’s literal antecedent thanks to this comedy.&nbsp;The rest of the <em>Sausage Party’</em>s<em>&nbsp;</em>starring cast, true to its<em>&nbsp;</em>title, are men.</p>
<p>So, as <em>Sausage Party </em>swells at the box office, let’s have a little taste of the history of the term. The&nbsp;earliest <em>sausage parties</em>, of course, were actual sausage parties: dinners and cookouts that served&nbsp;the meat. Still, the references&nbsp;can bring some chuckles to the modern reader.</p>
<p>English writer&nbsp;W. Blanchard Jerrold’s 1848 <em>The Disgrace to the Family: A Story of Social Distinctions </em>includes&nbsp;a chapter called <a href="https://archive.org/stream/disgracetofamil00jerrgoog#page/n86/mode/2up/search/sausage+party">“Mrs. Grumblebum’s Sausage Party.”</a> In it, the titular character enjoys “a sausage-dinner with a very select dinner party.” The chapter even opens with the perfect setup for some profanity: “The heading of this chapter will give the reader a presentiment of some vulgar details upon a very vulgar subject…” But alas, the payoff&nbsp;is not a dick joke: It’s “eating,” Jerrold reveals.</p>
<p>In her 1898 <a href="https://archive.org/stream/fourfootedameric00wrig#page/348/mode/2up"><em>Four-footed Americans and their Kin</em></a>, a sort of georgic novel, American author Mabel Osgood Wright also provides some laughs: “a sausage party is great fun, with dogs for the company…Dogs are crazy about sausages. Ours always lick their lips whenever Manny Bun cooks any.”</p>
<p><em>Sausage parties</em> throughout the 20<sup>th</sup> century refer to various local social traditions, behaving much like a&nbsp;weenie roast&nbsp;or barbecue today. A&nbsp;1922 <em>Lyre of Alpha Chi Omega</em> mentions an annual sausage party its sorority held in February. London’s <em><a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=h_wTAAAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22sausage+party%22&amp;dq=%22sausage+party%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y">Punch</a></em> notes in 1936 that Mayfair held its first sausage party.&nbsp;The <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=3DZOAQAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22sausage+party%22&amp;dq=%22sausage+party%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y">North Dakota Legislature</a> made sure to record its gratitude for its biennial sausage party in 1971.&nbsp;And a 1989 <em><a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=8U9pAAAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22sausage+party%22&amp;dq=%22sausage+party%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y">Swiss Scene </a></em>observes the challenge of keeping the sausage party tradition in a changing cultural landscape.</p>
<p>It’s unclear if any <em>de facto</em> sausage party is responsible for the slang term. One could imagine an actual sausage party, say, a university grill-out, inspiring the lingo. But <em>sausage</em> (and its many related forms, like “pork sausage”) has <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=bHytBAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA93&amp;dq=sausage+slang&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=sausage%20slang&amp;f=false">long been slang</a> for “penis,” so its attributive use with <em>party</em> seems just as likely. (For more <em>penis </em>slang, enjoy&nbsp;our very own <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/author/misterslang/">Jonathon Green</a>‘s <a href="http://timeglider.com/timeline/194b572e19fd461b">timeline</a> on the term. Green even notches a colorful “yoghurt-spitting sausage” in 2012.)</p>
<p>And s<em>ausage party </em>has its competitors, such as <em>sausage fest</em>, <em>meat market</em>, and <em>weenie roast</em>. <em>Sausage party</em>, at least according to my <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sausage+fest%2Csausage+party%2C+weenie+roast&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Csausage%20fest%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csausage%20party%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cweenie%20roast%3B%2Cc0">all-too-surface analysis</a>, beats out <em>sausage fest</em>, while <em>weenie roast</em> appears to prevail as a name for actual hot dog–serving cookouts—and perhaps because partygoing dudes&nbsp;would feel emasculated if they joked about showing up at a <em>weenie roast</em>. More piquant varietals include <em>cock fest</em> and <em>dick fest</em>.</p>
<p>Whatever the case,<em> sausage party </em>seems to bend toward its slang usage in the 1990s. One early citation—in a 1999 Bureau of National Affairs <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=xxlCAQAAIAAJ&amp;q=%22sausage+party%22&amp;dq=%22sausage+party%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y"><em>Fair Employment Practice Cases</em></a>—concerns harassment in the workplace, with an employee making homophobic statements about a co-worker having a “sausage party.” <em>Sausage party </em>seems squeezed into its current lexical casing come&nbsp;the early 2000s. In 2002, professor <a href="http://englishcomplit.unc.edu/people/eblec">Connie Eble</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=bbcBCgAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA1921&amp;dq=sausage+party+slang&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=sausage%20party%20slang&amp;f=false">included&nbsp;it</a> in her long-running <em>Campus Slang: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill</em> lists. <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sausage+party">Urban Dictionary</a> enters <em>sausage party</em> by&nbsp;spring of 2003.&nbsp;A 2004 slang guide, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=-EnPK8XyA3UC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=%22sausage+party%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=meat%20market&amp;f=false"><em>Turd Ferguson &amp; the Sausage Party</em></a>, defined the term for incoming college students. And a 2010 novelty website, called <a href="http://mashable.com/2010/03/31/sausage-fest/#UvnuWqDTZOql">Sausage Party</a>, once measured the expected “sausageocity” of an upcoming Facebook event.</p>
<p>Now, with the <a href="http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Sausage-Party#tab=summary">popular and critical success</a> of <em>Sausage Part</em>y<em>,</em> we should expect <em>sausage party</em> to fully bust out of its&nbsp;frat-house bro-talk and penetrate the mainstream.</p>Thu, 08 Sep 2016 14:08:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/07/the_history_and_origins_of_the_phrase_sausage_party_revealed.htmlJohn Kelly2016-09-08T14:08:00ZLifeOnce Upon a Time, a Sausage Party Was Just a Party With Sausages241160907002languagestrong languagemoviesJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/07/the_history_and_origins_of_the_phrase_sausage_party_revealed.htmlfalsefalsefalseOnce upon a time, a sausage party was just a party with sausages:“A sausage party is great fun," an American author wrote in 1898.Columbia PicturesA scene from the comedy movie <em>Sausage Party</em>, starring Seth Rogen and Kristen Wiig.We Have Questions to Raise About the Insidiously Banal Phrase Raises Questionshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/07/has_the_phrase_raises_questions_become_totally_meaningless_in_journalism.html
<p>At the center of one of this election’s latest kerfuffles isn’t another disparagement from Donald Trump or hedge from Hillary Clinton. It’s a common phrase.</p>
<p>Here’s what happened: <em>The New York Times</em> published an <a href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/emails-raise-new-questions-about-clinton-foundation-ties-to-state-dept.html?em_pos=small&amp;emc=edit_cn_20160902&amp;nl=first-draft&amp;nl_art=4&amp;nlid=50006009&amp;ref=headline&amp;te=1&amp;_r=0&amp;referer=">article</a> by Eric Lichtblau called “Emails Raise New Questions About Clinton Foundation Ties to State Dept.” <em><strong>Slate</strong></em>’s Jamelle Bouie <a href="https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/771694139733843968">puzzled at</a> the language in a tweet: “I don't quite understand how a denied request for special access raises questions about undue ties?” Amanda Marcotte also expressed her bewilderment <a href="https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/771393643345240070">on Twitter</a>: “Really, if the best you can do is ‘raises questions’, that isn’t much of a story. Journalism is about answering questions.” At <em>Vox</em>, Matthew Yglesias quickly <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12761756/clinton-foundation-passport-north-korea">dispatched</a> with <em>raises questions</em>: “[The email chain] certainly doesn’t raise the question of whether Clinton Foundation staff got special access to passports from the State Department. It <em>answers</em> the question. They didn’t, as the story says.” And Paul Krugman subtweeted the very newspaper he files his weekly <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?rref=collection/column/paul-krugman&amp;action=click&amp;contentCollection=opinion&amp;region=stream&amp;module=stream_unit&amp;version=latest&amp;contentPlacement=1&amp;pgtype=collection&amp;_r=1">column</a> for: “If reports about a candidate talk about how something ‘raises questions,’ creates ‘shadows,’ or anything similar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to create the impression of wrongdoing out of thin air.”</p>
<p>The issue with <em>raises questions</em>, for its critics, runs much deeper than any complaint about sloppy language. In spite of the implication teed up in the headline and lead, Lichtblau found no “pay to play” link between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s State Department in this latest batch of emails. So, the headline and lead’s charge of <em>raises questions </em>doesn’t merely mischaracterize the facts but also presupposes a nonexistent crime. Echoing Krugman, journalist Paul Waldman finds much larger consequences for the presumption. As he <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/02/heres-a-tale-of-two-scandals-guess-which-one-will-get-more-play/?utm_term=.28b3b9c8e7c1">argued</a> in <em>t</em>he <em>Washington Post</em>, this <em>raises questions </em>reinforces “a larger narrative” that Clinton is fundamentally “tainted by scandal, or corrupt, or just sinister in ways people can never quite put their finger on.” And what’s more, <a href="http://www.apple.com">Waldman</a> continues, the usage is downright unfair, for Trump’s affairs don’t go under the same <em>question-raising</em> scrutiny his opponent’s do. </p>
<p>We might make several counterarguments, of course. Linguistically, there is nothing terribly special about the<em> New York Times</em>’ use of <em>raises questions</em>. The phrase is boilerplate <a href="https://www.google.ie/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=news:+%22raises+questions%22&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8&amp;gws_rd=cr&amp;ei=XdrPV9E-otKABu_RiKgH">headlinese</a>, clich&eacute;d almost to the point of meaninglessness. Changing technology and media habits have forced newspapers toward grabbier language; if we want free content, we have to tolerate some level of <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-34213693">clickbait</a>. And politically, <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelbd/status/772855949866442752">some insist</a> that language like <em>raises questions </em>treats Clinton not with brass knuckles but with kid gloves.</p>
<p>But consider the objections to <em>raises questions</em> in a larger context. We may disagree with Waldman or Krugman, but we can’t disagree that it’s an example of journalists calling out journalists, of people in the media calling out the media. And this—this tiny instance of self-accountability—feels rare and refreshing in a media environment of <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/14/most-americans-already-feel-election-coverage-fatigue/">too much</a> news and information, in a time of intense <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/">polarization</a>, with a set of candidates of historic levels of perceived <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-popularity-trust_us_5782b2b3e4b01edea78e7277">untrustworthiness</a>, at a moment in democracy when we worry <a href="http://www.salon.com/2016/06/19/trumps_lies_arent_unique_to_america_post_truth_politics_are_killing_democracies_on_both_sides_of_the_atlantic/">truth is becoming optional</a>.</p>
<p>Sure, criticisms of the <em>Times</em>’<em> </em>use of<em> raises questions</em> can seem like a quibble or overreaction, but they cry for clarity, order, reason, consistency. They clamor for words with shared meanings, information with a shared reality. The problem, then, with <em>raises questions </em>isn’t simply one of logic, language, or even reportage. It’s whether we’re all willing to listen to the same answers.&nbsp; </p>Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:48:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/07/has_the_phrase_raises_questions_become_totally_meaningless_in_journalism.htmlJohn Kelly2016-09-07T17:48:00ZLifeWe Have Questions to Raise About the Insidiously Banal Phrase
<em>Raises Questions</em>241160907001languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/07/has_the_phrase_raises_questions_become_totally_meaningless_in_journalism.htmlfalsefalsefalseWe have questions to raise about the insidiously banal phrase "raises questions."Has it become meaningless or worse?Mark Makela/Getty ImagesIt's sort of deceptive to say Hillary's emails raise questions when they answer them instead.Is the Term Alt-Right a Euphemism?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/31/the_history_of_the_alt_right_label_how_successful_has_it_been_in_shielding.html
<p>Last week, Hillary Clinton gave a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/hillary_clinton_s_alt_right_speech_was_shrewd_strategy.html">speech</a> denouncing Donald Trump’s ties to the “alt-right” movement of reactionaries and racists that have been taken with Trump’s assault on “political correctness” and his promises to curb immigration. At this point, everyone that has spent a reasonable amount of time on the political internet knows the alt-right is made up of bigots and knuckle-dragging trolls. But where did the phrase <em>alt-right</em> actually come from?</p>
<p><em>Alternative right</em> was perhaps first used as the title of a speech given by the intellectual historian Paul Gottfried at an annual meeting of the far-right H.L. Mencken Club in 2008. The speech was published in <a href="http://takimag.com/"><em>Taki’s Magazine</em></a>, or <em>Takimag</em> for short—a publication with the kind of split personality disorder that now seems emblematic of the alt-right movement as a whole. Its tagline is “Cocktails, Countesses, and Mental Caviar,” words archly chosen to evoke cartoonish wealth and pretension. Alongside such highfalutin pieces as “<a href="http://takimag.com/article/valhalla_for_the_inarticulate_taki/print#axzz4Is4r7jwt">Valhalla for the Inarticulate</a>” are models of eloquence like the essay <strong>“</strong><a href="http://takimag.com/article/im_not_a_racist_sexist_or_a_homophobe_you_nigger_slut_faggot/print#axzz4Is4r7jwt">I’m Not a Racist, Sexist, or a Homophobe, You Nigger Slut Faggot</a>” and “<a href="http://takimag.com/article/is_hillary_clinton_a_brain_damaged_invalid_jim_goad/print#axzz4Is4r7jwt">Is Hillary Clinton a Brain Damaged Invalid?</a>” In that last one, readers are asked to probe such deeply intellectual questions as, “WHAT’S WITH THAT PSYCHOTIC CACKLE OF HERS?”</p>
<p>Gottfried’s <a href="http://takimag.com/article/the_decline_and_rise_of_the_alternative_right/print#axzz4Is4r7jwt">speech</a>, which <em>Taki </em>reprinted with the title “The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right,” is one of the more pretentious offerings. The speech itself doesn’t contain the phrase <em>alternative right</em>, but it does signal the arrival of an “independent intellectual Right.” This burgeoning movement aimed to chart a new course away from both <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-paleo-persuasion/">paleoconservatives</a> committed to fighting and refighting the philosophical battles of the distant past and mainstream <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/06/23/whats-a-neoconservative/">neoconservatives</a> who had made peace with many of the principles of the left.</p>
<p>Gottfried describes himself as “an aging paleo”—and he certainly sounds like one. His speech is written in the kind of ponderous style that used to dominate academic humanities writing before, as a paleo would put it, the “cultural Marxists” took over. The success of the left in pushing traditionalist paleoconservatives out of political discourse and roping in the rest of the conservative movement has resulted, he argued, in a right comprised of people that have had “little interest in the cognitive, hereditary preconditions for intellectual and cultural achievements.” Nor do these new conservatives sufficiently honor “the claims of family and society on the putatively autonomous individual.” Instead, they increasingly perpetuate the “dream of living outside of the state in a society of self-actualizing individuals, opening themselves up to being physically displaced by the entire Third World.”<br /> <br /> These ideas—the recognition of the need for a potentially strong state, the emphasis on family and society-supporting values, scientific racism, and by extension, a preoccupation with the perceived dangers of immigration—would constitute the core principles of the movement going forward. Also central is reverence for the achievements of Western (i.e. white) civilization, which, the alt-right contends, has depended on such ideas. Myriad groups, publications, and figures on the reactionary right and within the world of white nationalism had been mixing these notions for a long time, as had reactionary “New Right” groups and parties in Europe. But they’d never been corralled together by an umbrella movement with a name in the United States.</p>
<p>That changed with the publication of Gottfried’s speech and the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right">founding</a> of an online publication called <em>Alternative Right </em>in 2010 by <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/richard_spencer_at_the_rnc.html">Richard Spencer</a>, the <em>Takimag</em> editor who may have given the reprint its title<em>.</em> Bringing together some of the leading lights of white nationalism, <em>Alternative Right </em>published essays and other content advancing genteel racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism, along with the warning that Mexican immigration represented <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100405065522/http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/why-an-alternative-right-is-necessary">“the greatest threat to America.”</a></p>
<p>In 2012, <em>Alternative Right</em> ran an <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right">essay</a> called “Is Black Genocide Right?” by Colin Liddell. “Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes,” he wrote, “we should instead be asking questions like, ‘Does human civilization actually need the Black race?’ ‘Is Black genocide right?’ and, if it is, ‘What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?’ ”</p>
<p>The essay, like Gottfried’s speech and other alt-right tracts published at <em>Alternative Right </em>and its successor,<em> <a href="http://www.radixjournal.com/">Radix Journal</a></em>, advances ideas that are at once shocking and stale. The majority of these notions are the shower thoughts of the average backwater bigot expressed in detached, pseudo-professorial tones. Those tones would become less important to alt-right expression as the movement expanded its circle of contributors and allies from pompous essayists to random trolls on 4chan.</p>
<p>The shift from <em>alternative right</em> to <em>alt-right</em> reflects that explosion in popularity. It’s a convenient abbreviation less likely to come out of the mouth of a sesquipedalian and more ready for travel on the web. <em>Alt-right</em> retains the former phrase’s associations—the mix of alienation and optimism embedded in the act of proudly affirming an “alternative” direction—but compacts them into a snappier package. It recalls the gradual shift from <em>alternative rock</em> to <em>alt rock</em> as the genre and the attention given it similarly grew. In both cases, the growth was driven by an influx of people with less and less to say and cruder ways of saying it.</p>
<p>But, unlike the musicians, the alt-right was feeding from the bottom to begin with. The contributions to the movement by young trolls and white supremacists uninterested in whether or not their ideas could be called “mental caviar” have been unambiguously embarrassing. No matter how open to newcomers the movement’s old guard seems to be, one can imagine there’s a bit of discomfort among those given to diligently writing dozens of pseudoscientific paragraphs a day on race and IQ with the Pepe memes and unhinged tweets that are now taken as representative of the movement.</p>
<p>Those newcomers differ from the original alt-right in more than their lack of interest in phony intellectual discourse. Calling oneself <em>alt-right</em> today signifies little beyond a disgust with mainstream politics, minorities, and “political correctness.” To be sure, there are many who are working to shape the ideas explored by Gottfried and Spencer into a coherent ideology. But the moniker has been taken up by a broad and incompatible array of outcasts in varying levels of accord with the ideals defended in Gottfried’s speech.</p>
<p>The alt-right, according to those who claim membership, comprises both <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/25/what-alt-right-guide-white-nationalist-movement-now-leading-conservative-media/212643#dailystormer">neo-Nazis</a> and <a href="https://archive.is/20130423020553/towsonwsu.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-christian-declaration.html">those who believe Hitler killed too many white people to be admired</a>. It includes those <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-black-genocide-right">open to exterminating nonwhites</a> and <a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-to-replace-african-americans.html">those who want to sequester or repatriate them</a>. It includes fascists, <a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-introduction-to-national-anarchism.html">anarchists</a>, <a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-alt-right-economics-and-alternative.html">economic liberals</a>, <a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/10/unite-right.html">conservatives</a>, and <a href="http://www.vdare.com/posts/flailing-rand-paul-goes-full-cuckservative-trump-must-be-stopped-but-paleo-libertarianism-may-emerge-from-wreckage">libertarians</a> as well as people who’d rather we abandon the modern state altogether and return to <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/curtis_yarvin_booted_from_strange_loop_it_s_a_big_big_problem.html">some sort of quasi-monarchy</a>. It includes vociferous <a href="http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/05/damn-it-feels-good-to-be-christian.html">Christians</a>, <a href="http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015953.html">secularists, pagans</a>, <a href="http://therightstuff.biz/2016/04/11/zero-tolerance-why-arent-white-nationalists-and-jewish-nationalists-fellow-travelers/">and even a handful of Jews, to the disgust of the movement’s many, many strong anti-Semites</a>.</p>
<p>All have signed on to a project that argues that a clear, singular set of values embedded within Western civilization is worth preserving through exclusion and discrimination. Perhaps the gatekeepers of the alt-right would have an easier time articulating those values if they followed their own advice and, well, discriminated.</p>
<p>Until they do, <em>alt-right</em> will remain a useful catch-all label for some of the worst figures in American life today. There are no doubt those who use the label as a cloak—a badge white supremacists can wear openly and proudly. And it is probably true that the allure of being part of a transgressive, “alt” fringe has drawn young people who would not otherwise read tracts written by David Duke. But the label’s power as a Trojan horse—carrying bigotry and nonsense into both mainstream politics and the hearts of young people just looking for ways to piss off their politically correct peers—is rapidly diminishing. The alt-right has been explicitly tied to hate groups and rhetoric by Clinton’s speech and a mountain of media coverage. The kind of on-the-fence racist that might have been willing to examine chin-stroking about “hereditary” racial differences may well be too timid to have anything to do with a movement that has been linked to the KKK.</p>
<p>Moreover, while those on the alt-right have made use of mainstream-friendly euphemism—for instance, the innocuously named <a href="http://www.npiamerica.org/">National Policy Institute</a>, which Spencer runs, is “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States”—it’s not clear that the phrase <em>alternative right</em> is another example of such. Publishing essays like “Is Black Genocide Right?” at <em>Alternative Right</em> permanently and perhaps intentionally freighted the movement’s name. The mainstreaming of the alt-right is thus a product of the way they’ve articulated those ideas rather than what they’ve called themselves. The tone of their writing lent them legitimacy. The shock value of the memes that followed lent them a fringy, pop cultural cool. <em>Alt-right</em> is a name that has, for them, helpfully pointed to their dissatisfaction with conventional politics while avoiding the kind of explicit ideological implications and overspecification of a term like, say, <em>neo-Nazi</em>. But it’s no more effective at giving their members cover than white sheets. Their success thus far has been in getting more people to believe the sheets might be worth putting on.</p>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:21:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/31/the_history_of_the_alt_right_label_how_successful_has_it_been_in_shielding.htmlOsita Nwanevu2016-08-31T16:21:00ZLifeIs the Term
<em>Alt-Right</em> a Euphemism?241160831001languageOsita NwanevuLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/31/the_history_of_the_alt_right_label_how_successful_has_it_been_in_shielding.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs the term “alt-right” a euphemism?An inglorious history of the “alt-right” label, from “mental caviar” to Pepe memes.Jonathan Bachman/Getty ImagesThanks to Trump, the alt-right is getting unprecedented attention from the mainstream.Everything Is Weaponized Now. This Is a Good Sign for Peace.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/30/how_weaponize_became_a_political_cultural_and_internet_term_du_jour.html
<p>In the 1950s, we weaponized uranium to make nuclear warheads. Today, we weaponize safe spaces at <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-campus-activists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/">campus protests</a>. What happened? The history of this word <em>weaponize </em>reveals the shifting anxieties of the past half-century. But in this violent metaphor, which has been bombarding our public discourse of late, there is actually something much more peaceful afoot.</p>
<p><em>Weaponize</em> originated as technical jargon in the U.S. military. At the onset of the Cold War, scientists <em>weaponized</em> rockets, fitting them with nuclear material and equipping them for launch. The <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> first attests <em>weaponize</em> in 1957, citing the controversial aerospace pioneer <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/2013521386874374.html">Wernher von Braun</a>, who used the neologism in the <em>New York Times </em>with respect to ballistic missiles. That same year, <em>Aviation Week </em>wrote of <em>weaponization </em>as “the latest of the coined words by missile scientists.”</p>
<p>Nuclear <em>weaponizing</em> persisted through the arms races, missile crises, and fears of mutually assured destruction of the 1950s and 1960s. Since then, <em>weaponize</em> has expanded into new frontiers. In the late 1960s and 1970s, we see biological and chemical agents <em>weaponized </em>thanks to the Vietnam War. The Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars, weighed <em>weaponizing</em> space in the 1980s. During the 1990s, the geopolitical focus turned from Russia to the Middle East and Asia over concerns of growing <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=Dx5uAAAAMAAJ&amp;q=weaponization&amp;dq=weaponization&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y">weaponization</a><em> </em>there.<em> </em>After the post-9/11 anthrax attacks thrust <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=ZzlNgS70OHAC&amp;pg=PA22&amp;dq=weaponized+anthrax&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=weaponized%20anthrax&amp;f=false">weaponize</a><em> </em>back into the spotlight, the word has since geared up on two new fronts: <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/02/12/these-countries-have-armed-drones/">drones</a> and <a href="http://www.zdnet.com/article/simulation-what-if-digital-wmds-attack-america/">cyberwarfare</a>. Now, some fear future <em>weaponization</em> in viruses, DNA, insects, robots, geoengineering, and even marijuana.</p>
<p>But it’s outside of military contexts that <em>weaponize</em> has really proliferated in the last decade. We’ve <em>weaponized</em>: <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=UHJDMwAACAAJ&amp;dq=the+weaponized+woman&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwi7_MK_k9rOAhVqB8AKHUwQCbwQ6AEIHTAA">women</a>, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=9xgwNyzZm4IC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=weaponized+women&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=weaponized%2520women&amp;f=false">architecture</a>, <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/441995/uber-growing-threat-corporate-surveillance">black suffering</a>, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=eVZEAQAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT6&amp;dq=weaponizing+anthropology&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjEi-_Yk9rOAhWcF8AKHcPzCBMQ6AEIHTAA%23v=onepage&amp;q=weaponizing%2520anthropology&amp;f=false">anthropology</a>, <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/441995/uber-growing-threat-corporate-surveillance">the facts</a>, texting, <a href="https://ladygeekgirl.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/sexualized-saturdays-weaponized-femininity/">femininity</a>, <a href="http://www.avclub.com/review/teenage-mutant-ninja-turtles-out-shadows-michael-b-237616">marketing</a>, secularism, <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/the-storytelling-animal-a-conversation-with-jonathan-gottschall/">religion</a>, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=F24nUMrOU5YC&amp;pg=PA95&amp;dq=weaponize+ideology&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiZ-bGxk9rOAhWHAcAKHcWBBvIQ6AEIHTAA%23v=onepage&amp;q=weaponize%2520ideology&amp;f=false">ideology</a>, traditional forms of dress, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=VtYBAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA201&amp;lpg=PA201&amp;dq=%2522weaponized+virtue%2522&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=mvucr9OXiN&amp;sig=7zfhd00l_tpOB3q9NTba-atHOi4&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwikgYCclNrOAhXLLsAKHVQZCn8Q6AEIJzAC%23v=onepage&amp;q=%2522weaponized%2520virtue%2522&amp;f=false">virtue</a>, <a href="http://www.mtv.com/news/2858019/carly-rae-jepsen-live-public-display-of-affection/">sadness</a>, <a href="http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/14/whos-a-native-american-its-complicated/">social constructions</a>, <a href="http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/03/15/whos-afraid-of-the-apple-watch-aapl">iWatches</a>, and <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/441995/uber-growing-threat-corporate-surveillance">fictional experiences in video games</a>. The word, of course, has enjoyed glibber applications: Writers have weaponized everything from <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/11/the-politics-of-the-poop-joke/382970/">flatulence</a> to <a href="http://www.escapefuel.com/team/">kale salads</a>. This website appears, to some, to <a href="http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/07/11/taste-as-taste/">weaponize the narcissism of small differences</a>.</p>
<p>The 2016 presidential election has been a hotbed for <em>weaponization.</em> There’s the <em>weaponization</em> of Jeb Bush’s campaign fundraising, <a href="http://qz.com/613574/beware-of-the-angry-white-male-public-intellectual/">online harassment</a> from Bernie Bros,<em> </em>and <a href="http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a46800/republican-convention-weaponized-grief/">grief</a> at the Republican National Convention. Donald Trump has <em>weaponized</em> the issue of <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/trumps-doctrine-speak-loudly-and-carry-many-big-sticks/article29498682/">trade</a>. Putin has <em>weaponized</em> <a href="https://twitter.com/DefenseOne/status/765390633209069568">WikiLeaks</a> against the Clinton operation. On<em> The Diane Rehm Show</em>, psychologist William Doherty cautioned against <a href="https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2016-08-17/debate-over-armchair-psychological-assessments-of-donald-trump">“weaponizing diagnoses”</a> of mental illness against Donald Trump. And on <em>The Run-Up</em> podcast, conservative radio show host Charlie Sykes lamented how an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/podcasts/media-truth-charlie-sykes.html?rref=collection%252Fcolumn%252Frun-up-election-podcast&amp;action=click&amp;contentCollection=podcasts&amp;region=stream&amp;module=stream_unit&amp;version=latest&amp;contentPlacement=1&amp;pgtype=collection&amp;_r=0">“alternative reality has been weaponized”</a> by the alt-right media. This <em>weaponization</em> has transformed just about every political act “into a powerful means of gaining advantage,” as Chuck McCutcheon and David Mark <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=siczCwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PT71&amp;lpg=PT71&amp;dq=doubletalk+weaponize&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=2nY1sxKlyD&amp;sig=HArwfyXnfbynY_Qq-DpJN_17-0c&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwivoYOcmNrOAhWqD8AKHch8CmcQ6AEIIDAA%23v=onepage&amp;q=doubletalk%2520weaponize&amp;f=false">argue</a> in their election glossary, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Doubletalk-Language-Jargon-Presidential-Election-ebook/dp/B018UG18WO">Doubletalk</a>.</p>
<p>So, is <em>weaponize </em>just a metaphor <em>du jour</em>? We do like to broaden our words over time; take our nonetymological usages of <em>decimate </em>and <em>awesome, </em>perennial gripes of prescriptivists. Or are we under the spell of a linguistic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_illusion">recency illusion</a>? When we notice a word in one place, we indeed find it frequenting many others. Have professors just cribbed from sergeants, appropriating w<em>eaponize</em> to shorthand their theories of hegemony? Many usages of <em>weaponize</em> do come from the mouths and pens of experts, and a new-fangled <a href="https://twitter.com/weaponizedu">Twitter account</a> even mocks the overused <em>weaponized X</em> in academese. All of these factors surely have some influence on the spread of this aging word, but the massive and growing stockpile of <em>weaponize</em> still suggests it’s more than just a buzzword.</p>
<p>Examples of <em>weaponize </em>in the <em>Atlantic</em>, which has deployed it against<em> </em>a range of targets, are particularly instructive. <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/what-an-academic-who-wrote-her-dissertation-on-trolls-thinks-of-violentacrez/263631/">In a 2012 article</a>, Whitney Phillips examined how internet trolls “weaponize existing tropes and cultural sensitivities.” <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/02/the-charming-misogynies-of-hitch/385389/">In 2015</a>, Megan Garber called out the casual misogyny underlying the “weaponized charm” of the romantic comedy <em>Hitch</em>. <em>Weaponize</em> made it into the headline, and thesis, of a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-campus-activists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/">November 2015 piece</a> by Conor Friedersdorf: “It’s as if they’ve weaponized the concept of ‘safe space’,” he wrote of the 2015–16 University of Missouri protesters who, in duly exercising and fighting for civil liberties, stymied some of those selfsame rights for journalists.</p>
<p>In these <em>Atlantic </em>examples, we can observe contradictory forces of <em>weaponize</em> at work. On the one hand, everything is a weapon. We are attacking each other online with memes, in popular culture with sexist subtexts, on university campuses with safe spaces. On the other hand, nothing is an actual weapon. Nuclear warheads and chemical agents are the preoccupations of a bygone era. We don’t have trenches or gladiatorial arenas anymore; we have comments sections. How are we to disarm the paradoxical force of <em>weaponize</em>?</p>
<p>We should first put <em>weaponize</em> in broader context. The word is on the linguistic battlefront of a larger cultural fight—a fight that’s easy to forget as we retreat to the political corners and sound off in the echo chambers of our digitally fragmented, ideologically segregated lives. We can see this fight waged between #BlackLivesMatter and #AllLivesMatter, between transgender bathroom access and “Back in my day, boys were boys.” We see it between banning Native American headgear in Yale Halloween costumes and Donald Trump’s epithet of “Pocahontas” for Elizabethan Warren. Brawling out on the turf of America’s changing demography and economy, <em>weaponize</em> is at the center of this fight between microaggressions and dog whistles, between trigger warnings and P.C. backlash, between the collective sacrifices required of pluralism and the conservatism of privilege, where nuance, complexity, and civil engagement are getting kicked in the ribs. As <a href="https://twitter.com/marylovefreedom/status/766091507405352960">one tweeter</a> epitomizes the conflict with painful irony: “‘The word &quot;racist&quot; was created SPECIFICALLY to trigger shame &amp; guilt in WHITE people. It is a weaponized word.” Yes, we’ve weaponized<em> weaponize</em>.</p>
<p>This larger conflict<em> </em>can seem like the weaponization of a societal mass destruction. An unprecedented political campaign, police shootings, climatological devastation, terrorist attacks: <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2016/07/is_2016_the_worst_year_in_history.html">2016 has felt like the worst year</a>, the most violent year ever. Yet, counterintuitively, the world is in reality becoming <a href="http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature">a less violent place</a>. Terrorist attacks are an unqualified horror, but just 100 years ago, the Battle of the Somme alone claimed more than 1 million lives. We once tolerated bullying as a fact of childhood life; now it’s getting its due as a major focus of policy. And in the public discourse, we aren’t talking about <em>weaponizing</em> nuclear warheads. We are talking about <em>weaponizing</em> safe spaces. The spread of <em>weaponize </em>is a mass destruction of literal weaponization. When metaphors become more violent, as with <em>weaponize</em>, it may just mean our world is becoming less so.</p>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/30/how_weaponize_became_a_political_cultural_and_internet_term_du_jour.htmlJohn Kelly2016-08-30T13:30:00ZLifeEverything Is
<em>Weaponized </em>Now. This Is a Good Sign for Peace.241160830001languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/30/how_weaponize_became_a_political_cultural_and_internet_term_du_jour.htmlfalsefalsefalseEverything is "weaponized" now. This is a good sign.We’ve weaponized: women, architecture, black suffering, anthropology, the facts, texting, femininity, marketing, secularism, religion, ideology, traditional forms of dress, virtue, sadness, social constructions, iWatches, and fictional experiences in video gamesBrendan SmialowskiPeacekeeper missile and two versions of the Minuteman missile at Warren Air Force base.Why Is Colored Person Hurtful and Person of Color OK? A Theory of Racial Euphemisms.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/24/colored_person_versus_person_of_color_how_does_society_decide_which_racial.html
<p>With <em>Good Morning America</em>’s Amy Robach currently <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/gmas-amy-robach-apologizes-for-on-air-racial-slur/2016/08/22/92b39748-6884-11e6-91cb-ecb5418830e9_story.html">on the griddle</a> for referring to black people as “colored people,” some might understand that the term has long been archaic but quietly wonder just what was wrong with it.</p>
<p>After all, “person of color” is considered perfectly OK, and even modern. Since “colored person” means the same thing, why is it wrong to say it?</p>
<p>Some would say that black people have a right to decide what they want to be called, and that that’s all there is to it. However, that answer is incomplete, and risks people merely classifying the matter as one more example of what Steven Pinker has artfully called the “euphemism treadmill.” We can do better than that.</p>
<p>Not that there isn’t such a treadmill. It’s that tendency that can seem designed to annoy us—how terms for groups and policies, especially, often turn over every generation or so. <em>Crippled</em> became <em>handicapped</em> became <em>disabled</em> became <em>differently abled</em>. <em>Home relief</em> became <em>welfare</em> became <em>cash assistance</em> and <em>temporary aid</em>.</p>
<p>Indeed, the fact that a century ago <em>colored</em> and <em>Negro</em> were acceptable terms—such that even today we have the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the United Negro College Fund—is well known. In the ’60s, those terms were replaced by <em>black</em>; by the time I was a conscious person in the early ’70s <em>Negro</em> was already a term I associated with my mother’s older books, unthinkable in current language. Then after just 20 years or so, <em>African-American</em> became the “proper” term, with <em>person of color</em> coming in at the same time as a way of referring to nonwhite people. However, in practice, <em>person of color</em> is used more for brown people than, say, Asians, and among brown people, for most, <em>person of color</em> suggests a black person somewhat more readily than a Latino.</p>
<p>“So what do they want to be called now???” one might ask about black people, differently abled people, cognitively challenged people, and others. However, the rolling terminology is not based on willful petulance or a deliberate way of keeping other people off guard. It stems from the way euphemism works—or better, always starts to work but doesn’t.</p>
<p>Namely, a euphemism is designed to step around an unpleasant association. When it comes to societal terms, the idea is to rise above pejorative connotations that society has linked to the thing in question. Hence while <em>cripple</em> was once a perfectly civil term, negative associations accreted upon it like rust or gnats, such that <em>handicapped</em> was felt as a neutral-sounding innovation. However, after a time, that word was accreted in the same way, such that <em>disabled</em> felt more humane. Yet, as we have seen, even that didn’t last.</p>
<p>The lesson is that when there are negative associations with something or someone, periodic renewal of terminology is not a feint, but something to be expected. Until the thoughts or opinions in question change, we can expect the rust to settle in, the gnats to swarm back on—and the only solution, albeit eternally temporary, is to fashion a new term. <em>Woke</em> becomes the new <em>politically correct</em>. My bet is on <em>hurtful</em> to become the new <em>offensive</em>, as that word takes on an air of association with leftist argument.</p>
<p>This returns us to names for black Americans. Malcolm X didn’t spearhead a change from <em>colored</em> and <em>Negro</em> to <em>black</em> because he wanted to keep the white man on his toes, but because he felt that those terms had associations with evil, negativity, and more specifically slavery and Jim Crow. He wanted to start afresh with a more neutral and even muscular term—<em>black</em>, at the time, sounded what we would today call fierce, “woke” even. <em>African-American</em> was similar—there were always those on the sidelines who were suspicious of <em>black</em> as suggesting evil, obscurity, and the negative in comparison to the “purity” of white. <em>African-American</em>, suggesting a link with ancient and vibrant cultures, felt celebratory and positive to Jesse Jackson and many other people.</p>
<p>The rolling terminology, then, is an attempt to refashion thought, not to be annoying. What creates confusion in the present tense on the African-American terms, however, is two things.</p>
<p>First, <em>colored</em> was replaced not because it was processed as an insult but because of something subtler, its association with a bleak past. As such it can seem odd that anyone would treat someone’s slipping and saying the term as an insult, given that “Colored!” was never a slur in the way that a word I need not mention was and is.</p>
<p>Then second, in other cases of rolling terminology, the older terms do become processed as slurs. To call someone a cripple or retarded today is starkly contemptuous, redolent of the schoolyard, the drunken barstool, or vicious argument. However, that isn’t true as much of <em>colored</em> or <em>Negro</em>, which is why they are still allowed in the names of older organizations (as opposed to how icky Mark Twain’s characters’ use of the N-word feels today, occasioning endless discussion and discomfort). The N-word is so deeply offensive across time and space that it leaves little room for other words to create anything like its grievous injury.</p>
<p>Notably, <em>black</em> has persisted robustly alongside <em>African-American</em>—note how clumsy “African American Lives Matter” would seem. The reason is that despite the persistence of racism after the early ’70s, few could say that black people since then have lived under the bluntly discriminatory, life-stunting conditions that blighted all black lives then. As such, <em>African-American</em> didn’t have as much ugly thought to replace, which is why it always had a slight air of the stunt about it, always felt as a bit in quotation marks. <em>Black</em> never connoted the ugly-newsreel/segregated water-fountain pain of <em>Negro</em> and <em>colored</em>, and <em>African-American</em> was created not because black had become especially freighted with negative associations, but because the hyphenated conception of identity had become so attractive and in vogue at the time. I personally have always found <em>African-American</em> clumsy, confusing, and implying that black history since 1600 was somehow not worthy of founding an identity upon, and I only use it when necessary. Yet I would never have ventured this relatively idiosyncratic position about <em>Negro</em> and <em>colored</em>.</p>
<p>In the end, Robach experienced what we usually call a slip of the lip—“colored people” is a readily available flubbed version, in the heat of living speech, for <em>people of color</em>. More interesting, really, is the response to her slip. The reason “colored people” is offensive without being a term of abuse is that it reminds many people of times when we were, whatever we were being called, abused.</p>Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/24/colored_person_versus_person_of_color_how_does_society_decide_which_racial.htmlJohn H. McWhorter2016-08-24T13:30:00ZLifeWhy Is
<em> Colored Person</em> Hurtful and
<em>Person of Color</em> OK? A Theory of Racial Euphemisms.241160824001racelanguageJohn H. McWhorterLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/24/colored_person_versus_person_of_color_how_does_society_decide_which_racial.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy is "colored person" hurtful and "person of color" OK? A theory of racial euphemism:The rolling terminology is not based on willful petulance or a deliberate way of keeping other people off guard. It stems from the way euphemism works—or better, always starts to work but doesn’t.Mike Coppola/Getty ImagesAmy Robach (center) of <em>Good Morning America</em> is in trouble for flubbing her racial terminology on air.How ’80s Is the Slang in Stranger Things?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/23/mental_douchebags_chill_wastoids_how_80s_is_the_slang_in_stranger_things.html
<p>In Netflix’s hit sci-fi drama <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/television/2016/07/stranger_things_a_spielberg_homage_by_the_duffer_brothers_on_netflix_reviewed.html"><em>Stranger Things</em></a>, a group of kids adventure to rescue their friend from the Upside Down, a parallel dimension inhabited by a gnarly monster. But fans are just as thrilled by its other parallel dimension: 1983. The story is set in fictional small-town Indiana. Creators Matt and Ross Duffer lovingly bring the 1980s back to life in the series, from the deft touches of Rubik’s cubes and wood-paneled basements to the sweeping homage to Spielberg and Stephen King.* Children of the period, and observers of its culture, agree that the show successfully <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/stranger-things-how-netflixs-hit-resurrects-the-1980s-w429804">recreates</a> the decade in its visuals, music, aesthetic, narrative, and even <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/08/04/stranger_things_characters_have_very_1980s_names.html">character names</a>. But what about its language? How ’80s is the slang in <em>Stranger Things</em>?</p>
<p><strong><em>Douchebag</em></strong></p>
<p>As Episode 1 introduces the story’s central preteens, Lucas, Dustin, Will, and Mike, we get a taste of how they talk. “It’s because she’s been dating that douchebag, Steve Harrington,” Lucas fires after Dustin complains about a snub from Mike’s sister. Later in the episode, <em>douchebag </em>returns at the family dinner table. Nancy hurls it at her younger brother: “You’re such a douchebag, Mike!” “Language,” the father dispassionately rejoins from behind his thick, aviator-shaped spectacles.</p>
<p>Would kids in 1983 have ribbed each other as <em>douchebag</em>s? While it emerges by the 1950s, <em>douchebag</em> seems to take off in popular culture in the 1980s, owing to its appearance in 1980’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_b3oPslctA">“Lord and Lady Douchebag”</a> <em>SNL </em>skit, 1982’s <a href="http://www.metacafe.com/watch/7812804/e_t_the_extra_terrestrial_1982_something_in_the_shed/"><em>E.T.</em></a>, 1984’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6BMIIIS6MM"><em>Revenge of the Nerds</em></a>, and, to spill over into the next decade, 1991’s <a href="http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Terminator-2-Judgement-Day.html"><em>Terminator 2</em></a>. During the 2000s,<em> </em>the insult went <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/business/media/14vulgar.html?_r=0">full mainstream</a>, with the clipped <em>douche</em> particularly prevalent today. <em>Douchebag</em>, then, would have sounded fresh and a bit edgy on Lucas and Nancy’s early ’80s lips.</p>
<p><strong><em>Cool</em>, <em>Ridiculous</em>, and <em>Gross</em></strong></p>
<p>“Nance, seriously. You’re going to be so cool now it’s ridiculous,” Barb comments on her best friend Nancy’s new-fangled fling with Steve. But she is also worried Nancy will replace her with Steve’s clique. “That’s gross,” Nancy reassures her friend.</p>
<p>Slang-wise, this scene time-travels. By 1983, <em>cool</em>, both as “hip” and “OK,” was <a href="http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-coo1.htm">well-settled</a> into the teenage lexicon. Beyond Barb, <em>Stranger Things</em> uses <em>cool</em> freely—and appropriately so—throughout the series. <em>Gross</em>, meanwhile,<em> </em>typifies the sassy judgment of <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/gag-me-with-a-spoon-e2809cval-speake2809d-takes-over-socal/">“val-speak”</a> that overtook the malls of 1980s America. But what about Barb’s <em>ridiculous</em>, or “unbelievable”? This broadened, emphatic usage of the word, which snowballed in the 2000s, may shade a tad anachronistic for the everyday speech of Reagan era teens. We should observe, though, that jazz musicians were using <em>ridiculous </em>in this way by the 1950s; <em>cool</em> has a similar lineage.</p>
<p><strong><em>Like </em>and<em> Chill</em></strong></p>
<p>Shortly after Nancy chats with Barb, Steve makes a move for some evening plans: “We can just, just like, chill in my car…” Nancy uses another iteration of <em>chill</em> in Episode 2: “Barb, chill,” she chides her friend, whom she drags out to Steve’s school-night party. “I’m chill,” Barb tries.</p>
<p>Both <em>like</em> and <em>chill</em> are very much of the 1980s cultural moment. The former, <em>like</em>, is a <a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/002195.html">versatile speech disfluency</a> that reaches far back in the 20<sup>th</sup> century. But this <em>like</em> became synonymous with that ’80s caricature, the Valley Girl, helped along by Moon Unit Zappa’s 1982 smash single, <a href="http://genius.com/Frank-zappa-valley-girl-lyrics">“Valley Girl.”</a> <em>Chill</em> also came of age in the Reagan years. First slang for “cool down” and then “hang out,” <em>chill </em>stars in late-’70s hip-hop. <a href="http://genius.com/Sugarhill-gang-rappers-delight-lyrics">“Rapper’s Delight”</a> drops the “cool down” varietal in 1979, Run-D.M.C.’s <a href="http://genius.com/Run-dmc-my-adidas-lyrics">“My Adidas”</a> the “hang out” offshoot<em> </em>in 1985. White, middle-class America, as ever, appropriated the lingo. As an 1986 <em>Early Adolescence Magazine</em> <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=GltRAAAAYAAJ&amp;q=%22Take+a+chill+pill%22&amp;dq=%22Take+a+chill+pill%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y">observed</a>: “Some ‘tribal membership’ teen lingo recently overheard included: rad, rad to the max, chill out, take a chill pill, totally out, punks, freaks, awesome, this dude is dino-rhino, grits, hosers, slime, and scuzz.” Barb’s adjectival <em>chill </em>is also of the era; the <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> finds it for “relaxed” in the very year <em>Stranger Things </em>is set.</p>
<p><strong><em>Mental</em>, <em>Psycho</em>, and <em>Weirdo</em></strong></p>
<p>Looking for the missing Will in storm-battered woods, Mike, Lucas, and Dustin find Eleven, the mysterious, traumatized test subject with psychokinetic powers who helps the boys in their friend-finding quest. At the opening of Episode 2, Lucas and Dustin debate whether it’s wise to hide the unusual girl in Mike’s basement, fearing that she is “mental” and “psycho.” Lucas’ distrust for Eleven only builds, leading him to nickname her “weirdo”</p>
<p><em>Mental </em>and <em>psycho</em> have long been used to take down “insane” or “crazy” persons. The <em>OED</em> attests them in the early 1900s, and both made it into the 1948<em> American Thesaurus of Slang. </em>No doubt <em>mental </em>and <em>psycho</em> would have been ready-and-able ammunition for Dustin and Lucas by 1983. To many present-day ears, the terms may even sound dated (though <em>mental </em>maintains currency for British-English speakers, among others), indeed suggesting how slang has progressed since the time of <em>Stranger Things</em>. Sensitivity to mental health has increased, for one, while terms like <em>crazy</em>, <em>nuts</em>, and <em>insane</em> now often over-tout something as “incredible.”</p>
<p><em>Weirdo</em> is a younger term, emerging in the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century. Its slightly earlier variant, <a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&amp;dat=19680220&amp;id=WgAdAAAAIBAJ&amp;sjid=MZsEAAAAIBAJ&amp;pg=7252,3376022&amp;hl=en">weirdie</a>, mocked the bearded, long-haired, “dirty hippy” of the 1960s. <em>Weirdo</em> came into its own in the 1970s and early 1980s. Horror film <a href="https://sfy.ru/?script=when_a_stranger_calls_1979"><em>When a Stranger Calls</em></a><em> </em>used <em>weirdo</em> in 1979. Underground cartoonist Robert Crumb launched <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=b2BQAAAAMAAJ&amp;q=weirdo+comics&amp;dq=weirdo+comics&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y"><em>Weirdo</em></a> magazine in 1981, a bit avant-garde for the comics-loving boys of <em>Stranger Things. </em>By 1992, <em>weirdo </em>was safe enough for young adult literature, embraced by the likes of <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=O1wKOFsJ-DYC&amp;pg=PA6&amp;lpg=PA6&amp;dq=seventh-grade+weirdo&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=INaqv8o1Vy&amp;sig=McrSsJ6ioRNt_a4hvPDJKMGYCdY&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj25rWzgc3OAhWMA8AKHXh3ABM4ChDoAQgtMAQ%23v=onepage&amp;q=seventh-grade%20weirdo&amp;f=false"><em>Seventh-Grade Weirdo</em></a><em>.</em> The 1980s, then, appear to mark <em>weirdo</em>’s shift from countercultural epithet to schoolyard slight, fitting for the concerned frustration of Lucas.<em></em></p>
<p><strong><em>Mouth-breather </em>and <em>Wastoid</em></strong></p>
<p>In Episode 3, Mike teaches some vocabulary to the language-deprived Eleven. “I was tripped by this mouth-breather Troy, OK?” Mike divulges to Eleven. “Mouth-breather?” she asks. “Yeah, you know…a dumb person, a knucklehead … I don’t know why I just didn’t tell you. Everyone at school knows. I just, didn’t want you to think I was such a wastoid, you know?”</p>
<p>As it recurs throughout the series, <em>mouth-breather </em>bonds Mike and Eleven together against the common foes of schoolyard bullies, controlling adults, and even the freaky, maw-headed monster. It’s colorful and descriptive, and innocent in its meanness, suiting Mike’s fantasy-soaked imagination and earnest goodwill. But it’s also a peculiar pejoration. <a href="https://www.google.ie/search?q=%22mouthbreather%22&amp;tbm=bks&amp;tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1800,cd_max:1902&amp;lr=lang_en&amp;gws_rd=cr&amp;ei=v722V9vTNKzBgAbs2aLwBw">At the onset of the 1900s</a>, <em>mouth-breather</em> was a medical term for children who had to so breathe due to physiological conditions (e.g., adenoids). Their respiration, mocked as heavy and slobbery, became quickly associated with idiocy. Slang lexicographer Jonathon Green first finds it referring to a “stupid person” in 1915. <em>Mouth-breather</em> picked up steam starting in the 1960s, especially connoting a kind of imbecilic goon, apt for its bully-targeted usage in <em>Stranger Things</em>. Other dictionaries, including the <em>OED</em> and Partridge’s slang dictionaries, don’t cite <em>mouth-breather</em> until the mid 1980s, suggesting it may have taken popular hold around the time. And Mike’s gloss of <em>mouth-breather</em>, “knucklehead,” would have sounded old-fashioned and dad-jokey even then, at least 40-years-old by that point.</p>
<p>Finally, of all the slang in<em> Stranger Things</em>, <em>wastoid</em> sounds the most of the time. Many will know it from that quintessential ’80s film, <em>The Breakfast Club</em>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL_C29H-bYo">when Andrew tells Bender,</a> “Yo wastoid, you’re not gonna blaze up in here.” David Foster Wallace writes of self-described <em>wastoids</em>, directionless stoners in <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=FcLH-EMdjHYC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=david+foster+wallace+wastoid&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=david%20foster%20wallace%20wastoid&amp;f=false"><em>The Pale King</em></a><em> </em>(the 2011 novel is set in 1985, though <em>wastoid</em> is used in reference to the 1970s ). While especially used of a “drug-user,” wasted and droidlike, Mike’s usage of <em>wastoid</em> suggests a jump to a more general “loser” or “moron.”</p>
<p>As far as this by no means exhaustive account is concerned, the slang in <em>Stranger Things</em> is timely, credible, and authentic. But here’s the thing. From its title cards and haircuts to its bike rides and plot lines, <em>Stranger Things</em> misses no opportunity to resurrect 1980s nostalgia. So why doesn’t it<em> </em>pipe in more slang with the distinct time stamp of the decade: <em>barf</em>, <em>bodacious</em>,<em> gag me with a spoon</em>,<em> get real</em>,<em> grody</em>, <em>rad</em>, <em>to the max</em>, <em>tubular</em>?</p>
<p>For one, slang is notoriously short-lived and group-bound. <em>Chill</em> and <em>cool</em>, for whatever accident of speech, have demonstrated an anomalous diffusion and staying power. <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22to+the+max%22&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20to%20the%20max%20%22%3B%2Cc0">To the max</a> calls up the 1980s, but in novelty, not mood. Given the weight dialogue carries in a story, hyper-timely slang can distract from character, narrative, and atmosphere in a way the background texture of Barb’s acid-washed mom jeans do not. Instead, with measure and nuance, the Duffer brothers pepper <em>Stranger Things</em> with authentic slang of the ’80s but also beyond the ’80s, drawing on everything from the older-sounding <em>mouth-breather</em> to the still au courant <em>chill</em>. And in this way, its slang looks back to a time in service of a more timeless tale.</p>
<p><em><strong>*Correction, Aug. 23, 2016:</strong> This post originally misspelled Rubik’s cube. </em><br /> </p>Tue, 23 Aug 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/23/mental_douchebags_chill_wastoids_how_80s_is_the_slang_in_stranger_things.htmlJohn Kelly2016-08-23T13:30:00ZLifeHow ’80s Is the Slang in
<em>Stranger Things</em>?241160823001languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/23/mental_douchebags_chill_wastoids_how_80s_is_the_slang_in_stranger_things.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow ’80s is the slang in "Stranger Things"?Pretty ’80s, it turns out!NetflixNoah Schnapp, Caleb McLaughlin, and Gaten Mattarazo in<em> Stranger Things.</em>It’s Hot Out. But Is It “Hot as Balls”?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/19/the_origins_and_history_of_hot_as_balls_just_in_time_for_august.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/great-balls-of-fire/">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>We’ve had yet another month of record-breaking temperatures—and a corresponding spike in Google <a href="https://www.google.ca/trends/explore?date=all&amp;q=hot%20as%20balls">searches</a> for <em>hot as balls</em>,&nbsp;a phrase that’s gotten popular as balls (mostly in the U.S.) in the past 10 years or so. Although <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hot%20as%20balls">Urban Dictionary</a> has an entry for the phrase from 2001, it became undeniably mainstream five years later during the heatwave of 2006. Lin-Manuel Miranda and Chris “Shockwave” Sullivan created this video in response to the scorching weather that year:</p>
<p>(Here’s their 2012 sequel):</p>
<p>Tagging along with<em> hot as balls</em> is&nbsp;its slightly less popular cousin, <em>cold as balls</em>. You can see them alternating seasonally on Google Trends:</p>
<p>The <em>X as balls</em> construction is interesting, because the set of adjectives that <em>X</em> can be is—for now, anyway—smaller than the set that works with <em>as hell</em>, <em>as shit</em>, or <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/sweary-as-fuck/"><em>as fuck</em></a>. You can be <em>polite as fuck</em> or <em>impatient as hell</em>, but <em>polite as balls </em>and <em>impatient as balls</em>, while hilarious, don’t convey the same urgency, extremity, or standard of comparison. With some exceptions, like this quote from <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BSEJR9C/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Wire</a></em> episode “Boys of Summer”—</p>
<blockquote>
Det. Thomas “Herc” Hauk: [after Council President Nareese Campbell walks by] Council President’s hot as balls!
</blockquote>
<p>—<em>hot as balls</em> and <em>cold as balls</em> typically describe actual temperatures and are used less often in figurative senses of <em>hot</em> and <em>cold</em>.</p>
<p>The difference between <em>X as balls</em> and <em>Y as fuck,</em>&nbsp;<em>Y as shit,</em> and <em>Y as hell </em>is that although they all look like similes, only <em>X as balls </em>functions as one. We learned in school that simile is a figure of speech that compares two things using <em>like</em> or <em>as</em>. Although linguists haven’t studied simile as profoundly as they have metaphor, possibly because it seems blander and more straightforward, they have made some nuanced observations that we weren’t taught in junior high English.</p>
<p>Both similes and metaphors have a <em>tenor</em> (usually the subject) and a <em>vehicle </em>(what the subject is compared to). The <em>ground</em> is the quality common to both. In metaphor, the ground is implied. In <em>(as) [adjective] as [noun]</em> similes, the ground is made explicit. So in “The weather’s (as) hot as balls,” <em>weather</em> is the tenor, <em>balls</em> the vehicle, and <em>hot</em> the ground. Simile is figurative, comparing two fundamentally different things, so direct, literal comparisons can’t be similes: “The tumor was as big as a grapefruit,” for example, isn’t a simile because it directly compares the size of the tumor with the size of the grapefruit, and a grapefruit’s bigness isn’t its defining characteristic.</p>
<p>Of all <em>[adjective] as [swearword]</em> constructions, <em>Y as hell</em> is the oldest. We know that Shakespeare used it—in <em>Hamlet</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
And that his soul may be as damn’d and black
<br /> As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays.
</blockquote>
<p>in <em>Othello</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
Patience, thou young and rose-lipp’d cherubin,—
<br /> Ay, there, look grim as hell!
</blockquote>
<p>and in <em>Twelfth Night</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>MALVOLIO: </strong>I say, this house is as dark as ignorance, though
<br /> ignorance were as dark as hell; and I say, there
<br /> was never man thus abused. I am no more mad than you
<br /> are: make the trial of it in any constant question.
</blockquote>
<p>among other works.</p>
<p>It also shows up in the writing&nbsp;of Richard Rolle of Hampole (1290?–1349):</p>
<blockquote>
…in nane other thyng fyndes ioy &amp; comforth. In &thorn;is degre es lufe stalworth as dede, &amp; hard as hell. (
<em>The Commandment</em>)
</blockquote>
<p>For the most part, early uses of <em>as hell</em> highlight a feature&nbsp;that is prototypically hellish—<em>hot as hell, dark as hell, deep as hell, terrible as hell</em>—so for several centuries <em>Y as hell </em>had the characteristics of a bona fide simile. But in the earliest twentieth century, its use exploded, and it began admitting adjectives like <em>clever, happy, funny,</em> and <em>scared</em>. <em>Hell</em> had stopped being purely a vehicle for the simile, and <em>as hell</em> took on its present-day intensifying function. Rosamund Moon, who wrote <a href="https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/ijcl.13.1.03moo">“Conventionalized <em>As</em>-Similes in English,” published in the <em>International Journal of Corpus Linguistics </em>(2008)</a>, calls <em>as hell </em>an <em>emphatic particle</em> and doesn’t really consider it a simile. In <a href="http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~israel/Israel%26al-Simile.pdf">“On simile,” published in <em>Language, Culture, and Mind </em>(2004)</a>, authors Israel, Harding, and Tobin say that in <em>(as) X as [vehicle]</em> constructions:</p>
<blockquote>
… the source concept [another term for vehicle] can remain almost entirely unspecified without compromising the semantic import of the simile as a whole. For instance, idioms like “as X as anything,” “as
<em>X as you want</em>,” “as
<em>X as hell,”</em> and “as
<em>X as all get out”</em> are essentially conventional formulae for the expression of a superlative judgment by means of an otherwise vacuous comparison.
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, that arrangement of words&nbsp;itself, when the vehicle seems like a non sequitur, is what carries the connotation of <em>very</em> or <em>extremely</em>.</p>
<p>Unlike <em>as hell, as shit </em>and <em>as fuck</em> were born as emphatic particles, not as similes, probably because they were both dysphemisms for <em>as hell</em>. According to the Google Books corpus and the <a href="http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/">Corpus of Historical American English</a>, <em>as shit</em> admitted adjectives like <em>sure, funny, vivid,</em> and <em>naked</em> from the outset when it proliferated in writing&nbsp;in the 1950s and ’60s. It never started&nbsp;off as a figurative comparison to feces. <em>As fuck </em>was similarly inclusive from the outset, although it got going a slight bit later.</p>
<p>Which brings us back to <em>as balls. </em>It&nbsp;seems to have begun life not as a euphemism of <em>as hell, as shit,</em> or <em>as fuck</em> but as a simile in its own right—and it’s better that way, because similes, unlike emphatic particles, are truly evocative. If you hear <em>hot as balls,</em> you might picture someone having to unstick a sweaty scrotum from their inner thigh. And it’s easy to imagine sagging wrinkliness when someone says <em>old as balls</em>.</p>
<p>People are beginning to use more unexpected adjectives with <em>as balls.</em> The <a href="http://corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/">Corpus of Global Web-Based English</a> has instances of such phrases as <em>hungry as balls, boring as balls,</em> and <em>expensive as balls</em>. The incongruity of these adjectives adds to the humor because we still picture&nbsp;testicles&nbsp;when we encounter the phrases. But if we let <em>as balls</em> go the way of <em>as hell,</em> it’ll eventually be used mainly as an emphatic particle rather than a pure simile, and we’ll inevitably lose some of that&nbsp;evocative imagery.</p>
<p><em><strong>See also: </strong><a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/7%C2%BD-minutes-of-sean-bean-swearing/">Seven and a Half Minutes of Sean Bean Swearing</a></em></p>Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/19/the_origins_and_history_of_hot_as_balls_just_in_time_for_august.htmlIva Cheung2016-08-19T13:30:00ZLifeIt’s Hot Out. But Is It “Hot as Balls”?241160819001swearingheat wavesummerIva CheungLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/19/the_origins_and_history_of_hot_as_balls_just_in_time_for_august.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs it sweltering enough outside to qualify as “hot as balls” yet?The “X as balls” construction has a long and storied literary history.Philippe Huguen/AFP/Getty ImagesGreat balls of fire!Gymnastics Events Involving Bars Are Confusingly Namedhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/18/why_do_gymnastics_events_involving_bars_have_such_confusing_names.html
<p>The men’s and women’s gymnastics competition in Rio has ended. Goodbye, gymnastics. You were a pleasure to watch.</p>
<p>Respectfully, though, before you go, we’d like to ask about your bar nomenclature?</p>
<p>We’ve noticed that you have three distinct, bar-centric events: the horizontal bar, the parallel bars, and the uneven bars. The first two are part of the men’s contest, and the third takes its place in the women’s rotation. (There is also a beam, which could technically pass for a bar, in the women’s rotation, but we will ignore that for now.)</p>
<p>We’re sympathetic to your need to differentiate these three events. But we find ourselves perplexed by the way you’ve labeled them. The horizontal bar, for instance. All of the bars in gymnastics are horizontal. Otherwise they would be poles. Calling a piece of athletic apparatus a “horizontal bar” makes as much sense as calling it a “vertical pole.”</p>
<p>We are just trying to understand. Do swimmers compete in a “pool of water”? Do soccer players kick a “spherical ball”?</p>
<p>We’d like to respectfully suggest that you rename the “horizontal bar” event the “single bar.” Doing so distinguishes it from the other two bar-themed contests, each of which involves, if not a plethora of bars, more than one bar.</p>
<p>We believe that clarity when it comes to proper bar taxonomy is in your best interest.</p>
<p>Moving along to the parallel bars, they are parallel, yes, but so are the uneven bars. We defer to your judgment, but that seems confusing to us.</p>
<p>We recommend that you call the two that are even “the even bars.”</p>
<p>And the uneven bars, they can just remain “the uneven bars.”</p>
<p>Those are all of our suggestions about bars.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/r/rio_olympics.html"><strong>See more of Slate’s Olympics coverage.</strong></a></em></p>Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:37:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/18/why_do_gymnastics_events_involving_bars_have_such_confusing_names.htmlKaty Waldman2016-08-18T16:37:00ZLifeGymnastics Events Involving Bars Are Confusingly Named241160818001rio olympicsolympicslanguageKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/18/why_do_gymnastics_events_involving_bars_have_such_confusing_names.htmlfalsefalsefalseGymnastics events involving bars are confusingly named:We are just trying to understand. Do swimmers compete in a “pool of water”? Do soccer players kick a “spherical ball”?Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty ImagesGabby Douglas competes on the uneven bars, which are the only bars in gymnastics that have a name that makes sense.The Mysterious History of the Ellipsis, From Medieval Subpuncting to Irrational Numbershttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/17/the_ellipsis_in_medieval_manuscripts_how_subpuncting_in_the_middle_ages.html
<p>The punctuation mark of the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2015/10/29/how_to_use_an_ellipsis_examples_from_the_great_gatsby_james_joyce_t_s_eliot.html">ellipsis</a> is perhaps the most unusual mark in the English language, for punctuation marks are designed to convey meaning by indicating relationships between ideas, but the ellipsis does the exact opposite. It simply indicates that something has been omitted. Sometimes, this omission is poignant, as in J. Alfred Prufrock’s lament “I grow old...I grow old…” which invites the reader to imagine what has happened to the him in the spaces between him growing old. Sometimes, it is simply a placeholder, as happens when a fellow messager is typing on the other end of the line. (Personally, my favorite example of the ellipsis is <em>Seinfeld</em>’s infamous “yada yada yada,” but I digress.)</p>
<p>But where did the ellipsis come from and how did it end up being so unusual? The <em>Guardian</em>’s<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/20/unfinished-story-how-the-ellipsis-arrived-in-english-literature"> </a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/20/unfinished-story-how-the-ellipsis-arrived-in-english-literature">article</a> on the history of the ellipsis draws on Anne Toner’s fascinating book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1107073014/?tag=slatmaga-20">Ellipsis in English Literature: Signs of Omission</a> </em>to explore ellipses all the way back to the drama of the 16<sup>th</sup> century. Both the article and the book do an excellent job of analyzing these earliest print records of the modern ellipsis.</p>
<p>But that story may not be the whole story, for the dot dot dot of an ellipsis was no stranger to English texts before the plays of Shakespeare and Jonson. It might have just been serving a slightly different function.</p>
<p>In medieval manuscripts, we find a mark—sometimes called subpuncting or underdotting—that is used to indicate the omission of a word or phrase, usually when that word or phrase has been copied erroneously. This omission mark involves placing a series of dots under the word that is to be omitted. The image below shows an erroneous word, blotted out and subpuncted:</p>
<p>A scholar of medieval manuscripts, David Wakelin, conducted a study on how popular various methods of omission and correction were based on a sample of 9,000 manuscripts at the Huntington Library. He found that “crossing out, subpuncting, or erasure” accounted for 25% of the corrections he found. He does not provide a percentage of subpuncting alone, but it does occur in a variety of manuscripts, particularly those in the 14<sup>th</sup> and 15<sup>th</sup> centuries. Wakelin notes that subpuncting begins to die out in the early 16<sup>th</sup> century, and Toner picks up on the rise of the ellipsis in the late 16<sup>th</sup> century.</p>
<p>Could the two be related?</p>
<p>It is possible that the omission mark of subpuncting and the modern ellipsis stem from two different sources, with them serendipitously looking similar and subpuncting coincidentally fading away in manuscripts around the same time that the ellipsis is introduced in print. But it is also possible that the medieval practice of subpuncting provided a ready-made punctuation mark for new printers. One reason that no scholar has yet to answer this question is that there is a sharp divide between the two periods and mediums in the field. By and large, medieval scholars focus only on manuscripts (things written by hand), up through the first half of the 16<sup>th</sup> century, when manuscript writing decreased (but by no means disappeared). Similarly, early modern scholars generally focus only on printed materials, from the second half of the 16<sup>th</sup> century onward, when printing began increasing rapidly. Wakelin’s and Toner’s books are an examples of this division: Wakelin explicitly sets his own date range in his book’s title, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1107076226/?tag=slatmaga-20">Scribal Correction and Literary Craft: English Manuscripts 1375-1510</a> </em>and focuses only on manuscripts, while Toner begins her research in the late 16<sup>th</sup> century and only on printed texts. It is important to note that such omissions on either’s part are by no means a fault, though, as both are analyzing thousands of extant texts already. To complete something even more comprehensive would be extremely daunting. But, regardless, there is a gap between these two studies, an ellipsis in the scholarship, if you will.</p>
<p>But even if we do not know exactly if and how subpuncting and the ellipsis are related, they share a similarity in their functions. In both cases, they are used to omit meaning.</p>
<p>The word’s origins in the Greek ἔλλειψις mean “falling short, defect,” but the ellipsis also becomes associated with omission fairly early in its history. For instance, Quintillian, with the linguistic confidence only a Roman could exude, says that an ellipsis marks “the omission of words that can be recovered verbatim by means of contextual information.” Quintillian envisions the ellipsis more as an abbreviation than a defect. However, the <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>’s more modern definition highlights the mark’s inherent instability: An ellipsis implies “the omission of one or more words in a sentence, which would be needed to complete the grammatical construction or fully to express the sense.” In this sense, the ellipsis is defective, or falls short, because it inherently brings a gap in meaning.</p>
<p>Both subpuncting and the ellipsis indicate a falling short or a defect in the text, but they do so in slightly different ways. Subpuncting tends to preserve the original erroneous word, similar to how strikethrough works in modern typographical settings. In both medieval manuscripts and on modern computers, deleting the erroneous word is an option; however, subpuncting and strikethrough allow for the word to simultaneously remain and yet be omitted. Grammatically, it allows you to have your cake and omit it too.</p>
<p>But the ellipsis omits meaning by removing words entirely, with no way of knowing what is absent. For an analogy, an ellipsis in a sentence is like a hole in a mathematical equation. In fact, ellipses are used in mathematics to indicate missing terms, such as in a sequence (1+ 2+ 3…+100) or in matrices, math’s paragraphs. But sometimes an ellipsis omits meaning that was never there in the first place. This occurs when the mark is used at the end of a sentence to signal a forced or intended silence (called aposiopesis). In Toner’s words, the sentence “lapses into silence.”</p>
<p>But numbers lapse into silence, too, and in mathematical notation, an ellipsis is also used to indicate that the decimals of an irrational number will trail off to infinity, with no discernible pattern. For instance, if one were to write out the number pi, it would end in an ellipsis: 3.1415…. In this case, the ellipsis indicates an omission of both some known terms (we know<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-11313194"> </a><a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-11313194">the digits</a> of pi far beyond .1415) and unknown terms (since the sequence proceeds to infinity, we cannot know all of its digits).</p>
<p>Thus the ellipsis has been used to indicate anything from the erroneous to the irrational, and its intrigue lies in resistance to meaning. As long as we have things to say, we will have things to omit. Or, in other words, yada yada yada.</p>Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/17/the_ellipsis_in_medieval_manuscripts_how_subpuncting_in_the_middle_ages.htmlCameron Hunt McNabb2016-08-17T13:30:00ZLifeThe Mysterious History of the Ellipsis, From Medieval Subpuncting to Irrational Numbers241160817001languageCameron Hunt McNabbLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/17/the_ellipsis_in_medieval_manuscripts_how_subpuncting_in_the_middle_ages.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe mysterious medieval history of the ellipsis:Where did the ellipsis come from and how did it end up being so unusual?The British Library Board, Harley MS 6258 fol. 45rFrom Jefferson to Donald Trump, a Brief History of Presidential “Temperament”http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/15/from_jefferson_to_donald_trump_a_brief_history_of_presidential_temperament.html
<p>From <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/obama_just_put_trump_backing_republicans_in_a_tough_spot.html">President Obama</a> to <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/08/_50_gop_officials_say_trump_would_pose_danger_to_national_security.html">50 GOP national security officials</a>, leading politicians from both sides of the aisle have been charging that Donald Trump lacks “the temperament” for the presidency. Trump, meanwhile, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-temperament-226473">boasts</a> he has “one of the great temperaments,” a “winning temperament.” Thanks to an unprecedentedly temperamental Donald Trump, this word <em>temperament </em>has caught fire as a keyword, and central question, of the 2016 election: Do we want a president who is governed by temperament or who governs with temperament?</p>
<p>But <em>temperament, </em>that cool-headed, even-handed <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/features/2012/how_to_measure_a_president_/how_to_measure_for_a_president_temperament_is_a_president_s_most_important_attribute_and_the_hardest_to_examine_.html">attribute</a> so many consider a top qualification for the office, is a word long stamped with the seal of the president of the United States. And its history embodies a fundamental tension, if not contradiction, in our expectations of a president—as a person and as a leader.</p>
<p>One of the earliest usages of <em>temperament</em> in American political letters is from a president himself. <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=gfk5AAAAcAAJ&amp;pg=PA282&amp;dq=president+temperament&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=president%20temperament&amp;f=false">Writing</a> to John Adams in 1816, Thomas Jefferson reflected:</p>
<blockquote>
My temperament is sanguine. I steer my bark with Hope in the head, leaving Fear astern. My Hopes, indeed, sometimes fail; but not oftener than the forebodings of the gloomy…The perfection of the moral character is, not in a stoical apathy, so hypocritically vaunted, and so untruly too, because impossible, but in a just equilibrium of all the passions.
</blockquote>
<p>Jefferson’s usage of <em>temperament </em>is a telling one. In its earliest meaning, <em>temperament </em>denoted a “proper mixture of elements,” as the <em>Oxford English Dictionary </em>cites it in the late 14<sup>th</sup> century. The word itself derives from a Latin root that yields words like <em>temperature </em>and <em>temper</em> and has only been referring to a more general “mental disposition” since the 1820s.</p>
<p>Medieval philosophers believed the relative mixture of one’s essential bodily fluids<em>, </em>or <em>humors</em>, constituted an individual’s temperament: sanguine, choleric, melancholic, or phlegmatic. The ideal temperament enjoyed a balance, a proportioned mix, of these fluids. Though long since repudiated, humoral theory has had an enduring influence on our understanding of personality—and of presidential temperament, as Jefferson’s <em>sanguine</em>, <em>gloomy</em>, and <em>equilibrium </em>all point directly back to the notion of innate, deterministic traits.</p>
<p>Just as presidential temperament seemed to be escaping the clutches of humorism, another pseudoscience, phrenology, took hold. Sid Smith, in his 1838 <em>Principles of Phrenology</em>, <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=qncAAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA60&amp;dq=jackson+president+temperament+phrenology&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=jackson%20&amp;f=false">classified</a> then-Gen. Andrew Jackson’s cranium with the phrenological “organ” of Firmness, which the author identifies with a so-called Bilious Temperament: “General Jackson possesses an enormous development of this organ, and is singular for his obstinacy.” Many presidential historians, it’s worth noting here, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/">have sought precedent</a> for Trump’s aggressive temperament in Jackson, and while mere quackery, Smith’s description of Jacksonian Firmness is uncanny: “Firmness maintains the state of offence, and keeps alive the sense of insult.” (Good thing Smith was measuring heads, not hands.)</p>
<p>Beyond phrenology, trait-oriented explanations of presidential temperament persist through the 19<sup>th </sup>century. In his 1856 <em>Life of John Adams</em>, Charles Adam’s variously <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=NOvNAwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA599&amp;dq=president+temperament&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=president%20temperament&amp;f=false">describes</a> his grandfather’s <em>temperament </em>as “conservative,” “quick and inflammable,” and “sensitive and ardent.” Almost a half-century later, Virginia Townsend’s <em>Our Presidents: or, The Lives of Twenty-three Presidents of the United States </em>characterizes the temperaments of her <a href="https://archive.org/stream/ourpresidentsorl01town%23page/356/mode/2up/search/temperament">sweeping subject</a>: “Grover, with his sensible, practical temperament,” as she describes President Cleveland, “must have looked the facts early and courageously in the face, and resolved to having a hard battle with fate.” Buchanan’s temperament is “unemotional,” Garfield’s “brave” and “hopeful”—each descriptor seeking to explain a whole presidency through the unchanging, inborn temperament of the man.</p>
<p>By the turn of the century, presidential <em>temperament</em> begins to emerge in its more modern usage—and anticipates some very modern debates about it. A 1904 edition of <em>Collier’s</em>, for example, <a href="http://www.apple.com">dismissed</a> concerns about President Theodore Roosevelt’s bullish temperament:</p>
<blockquote>
The opponents of Mr. Roosevelt are overdoing the personality issue. The President’s temperament and character must be discussed in connection with what he has done to what he is likely to do…Indeed, the personal obstreperousness which offends some individuals endowed with taste is a part of his popularity throughout the country.
</blockquote>
<p>Allowing for a change in verbiage, some pundits are plating up this precise analysis of Trump’s temperament today: His unpresidential temperament is his very appeal.</p>
<p>Temperament worked in favor Roosevelt’s successor, William Howard Taft. In the 1908 <em>Review of Reviews</em>, Walter Wellman roundly <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?redir_esc=y&amp;id=MnSwvkTl0koC&amp;focus=searchwithinvolume&amp;q=temperament">concludes</a>: “Not only has Taft had the training that fits him to be President, he has the temperament.” In his endorsement, Wellman construes temperament not only as a core qualification of Taft, but of the presidency itself. A full look at his thinking is instructive:</p>
<blockquote>
The presidency is without a doubt just what President Roosevelt has called it, ‘the hardest job on earth’. To achieve success in it much more than intellectual equipment is required. Indeed, it may be doubted if a genius of the first rank could, under present conditions, make a success of it at all. Given a fairly strong mind and will, which pertain without question to any man who reaches the White House, beyond that success or failure is largely a matter of temperament. Chief of the temperamental qualities is tact, patience, good humor in the last analysis, the ability to work well and smoothly with men, to avoid friction, to attract loyalty, to get the best possible out of subordinates and out of the coordinate branch, the Congress.
</blockquote>
<p>Decades later, then-Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes also downplayed brainpower in his own, sardonic way, famously <a href="http://www.apple.com">ribbing</a> a newly inaugurated Franklin Roosevelt as a “second-class intellect but a first-class temperament.”</p>
<p>In the 1960s, presidential <em>temperament</em> came of age. Political scientist Richard Neustadt <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=elGozulX_o8C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0%23v=onepage&amp;q=extraordinary%20temperament&amp;f=false">maintained</a> in his 1960 <em>Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents</em>:<em> </em>“If we want Presidents alive and fully useful, we shall have to pick them from among experienced politicians of extraordinary temperament.” <em>Temperament</em> was electric in the electoral ether during the 1964 presidential race between an incumbent Johnson and Sen. Barry Goldwater. Louisiana Sen. Russell Long <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=tTAQAf6wpSQC&amp;pg=PA229&amp;dq=president+temperament&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=president%20temperament&amp;f=false">sniped</a> that Goldwater lacked “the temperament” for the office. Long’s <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/28/clinton_s_new_trash_talk_line_is_a_great_way_to_underscore_trump_s_bigotry.html">trash-talk</a> sounds as if it could have been said on today’s campaign trail: “If he was twice hospitalized from the pressures of being a dress salesman in a dry goods store, then how can he face Khrushchev, Mao Tse-Tung, and Castro all at the same time?” Meanwhile, <em>Life</em> <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=NEgEAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA4&amp;dq=president+temperament+lyndon+johnson&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=president%20temperament%20lyndon%20johnson&amp;f=false">endorsed</a> Johnson, though voiced concerns, wryly, about what a landslide win would mean: “This [two-thirds support for Johnson in the polls] raises the novel question of whether such a lopsided victory would be good for the U.S. two-party system—or for Lyndon Johnson’s own temperament.”</p>
<p>Finally, one of the most recent contributions to the presidential <em>temperament</em>, David Kiersey’s 1992 <em>Presidential Temperament</em>, reaches all the way back to <em>temperament</em>’s roots. In this work, Kiersey applies his <a href="http://www.keirsey.com/presidents.aspx">four personality types</a>—guardian, idealist, artisan, and rational—to the U.S. presidents, a construct rooted in the ancient archetypes of humorism. There is some irony that, for all the progress psychology has made since fluid levels and skull measurements, a contemporary formulation of presidential <em>temperament</em> so loudly echoes its medieval forebears.</p>
<p>But this irony underscores a deeper conflict in the American psyche. On the one hand, we want a president with <em>The Temperament</em>: the ability to overcome personal interests and limitations and answer the “3 a.m. call.” On the other hand, we want a president with <em>a temperament</em>, so to speak—to have a personality and charisma, someone we can drink the proverbial beer with. We want the “One nation” and the “This is a free country.” We want the <em>E Pluribus Unum</em> and the <em>Don’t Tread On Me</em>. We want the democrat and we want the individual. Donald Trump’s temperament—or lack thereof—is unlike anything we’ve seen in a presidential campaign, but it’s born of a deeply American temperament.</p>Mon, 15 Aug 2016 17:08:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/15/from_jefferson_to_donald_trump_a_brief_history_of_presidential_temperament.htmlJohn Kelly2016-08-15T17:08:00ZLifeFrom Jefferson to Donald Trump, a Brief History of Presidential “Temperament”241160815001languagedonald trump2016 campaignJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/15/from_jefferson_to_donald_trump_a_brief_history_of_presidential_temperament.htmlfalsefalsefalseFrom Jefferson to Donald Trump, a brief history of presidential "temperament":Thanks to an unprecedentedly temperamental Donald Trump, this word temperament has caught fire as a keyword, and central question, of the 2016 election: Do we want a president who is governed by temperament or who governs with temperament?Sara D. Davis/Getty ImagesDo we want a president who is governed by temperament or who governs with temperament?What the Ancient Epinikion, or Victory Song, Teaches Us About Olympic Athleteshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/11/what_the_epinikion_teaches_us_about_how_to_celebrate_olympic_heroes.html
<p>Forget medals, Wheaties boxes, interviews on<em> Good Morning America</em>, or corporate sponsorships: The ancient Greeks celebrated their Olympic champions with poetry. “When anyone is victorious through his toil,” as Diane Arnson Svarlien translates <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0162%3Abook%3DO.%3Apoem%3D11">a victory ode</a> composed by <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pindar">Pindar</a>, one of ancient Greece’s greatest lyric poets,*</p>
<blockquote>
then honey-voiced odes become the foundation for future fame, and a faithful pledge for the great deeds of excellence. This praise is dedicated to Olympian victors, without stint.
</blockquote>
<p>OK, the athletes did enjoy cash prizes, free meals at city hall for life, front-row seats at the theater, and some tax exemptions—not to mention some pretty epic sex parties upon homecoming. But <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=HLORxPo6asUC&amp;pg=PA77&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">orgies</a>, unlike odes, don’t last forever.</p>
<p>During the fifth century B.C., Pindar composed 45 such victory odes, perfecting this <a href="https://www.britannica.com/art/epinicion">genre</a> known as the <em>epinikion</em>, which literally means “upon victory.” (<em>Nike</em>, the Greek word for, and goddess of, victory, lives on in the athletic brand name.) The Hellenic elite commissioned these <em>epinikia, </em>to use the Greek plural. Choruses performed them in the victors’ hometowns with music and dance. Pindar left us four books of such odes, named for the four great <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhellenic_Games">Panhellenic Games</a>: the <em>Olympians</em>, <em>Pythians</em>, <em>Nemeans</em>, and <em>Isthmians</em>. Chief among the games, and among the odes, were the Olympics, that quadrennial religious festival held in honor of Zeus in Olympia starting in 776 B.C.</p>
<p>As poetry, Pindar’s <em>epinikia</em> are <a href="http://blog.oup.com/2012/07/the-victory-odes-of-pindar/">highly wrought</a>. They draw on a variety of ancient Greek dialects, unfold in dense syntax and meter, develop elaborate metaphors in a lofty register, abound in cultural allusions, and shift topics abruptly. Much of this complexity, which scholars agree requires a Herculean effort to translate, is lost on the modern reader. But nearly 2,500 years later, Pindar’s poetry—and the social, moral, and aesthetic moves he makes in it—has compelling and instructive echoes for Rio 2016 today.</p>
<p>Pindar first opens each ode with the name and event of the winner: “Theron of Acragas, Chariot Race,” as Arnson Svarlien renders&nbsp;<a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0162%3Abook%3DO.%3Apoem%3D2">Olympian 2</a>. Then, Pindar starts singing praises right out of the starting blocks:</p>
<blockquote>
Songs, rulers of the lyre, what god, what hero, what man shall we celebrate? Indeed, Pisa belongs to Zeus; and Heracles established the Olympic festival, as the finest trophy of battle; and Theron must be proclaimed who is just in his regard for guests, and is the bulwark of Acragas, the strength of the city, the choicest bloom of illustrious ancestors, who labored much with their spirits, and won a sacred home by the river, and were the eye of Sicily; their allotted lifetime attended them, bringing wealth and grace to their inborn excellence.
</blockquote>
<p>The poet praises the victor, yes, but he also lauds Zeus, Heracles, and the people of Acragas, Theron’s homeland. When he does explicitly praise Theron, he doesn’t hold up his performance on the racetrack but, rather, his hospitality and public good. Pindar goes on, relating an important myth associated with Olympia, the site of victory, further ennobling Theron’s accomplishment. Yet he intersperses the sacred tale with cryptic, cautionary aphorisms on the unpredictable, transient nature of the human condition: “But at various times various currents, both of pleasure and toil, come to men.” (Or, in his exquisite cadence to <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0162%3Abook%3DO.%3Apoem%3D7">Olympian 7</a>: “In a single space of apportioned time the winds shift quickly from moment to moment.”)</p>
<p>Just as he elevates Theron to divine, mythic status, he cuts him back down to size, emphasizing his humility, his humanity, his earthliness. What is Pindar trying to accomplish here? This tension, as the tradition of Pindaric scholarship has long noted, marks an essential social function of <em>epinikia</em>. As Oliver Taplin <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=TilWjorNXioC&amp;pg=PA65&amp;dq=epinicion+OR+epinikion+date:1940-2009&amp;lr=&amp;num=100&amp;as_brr=3&amp;as_pt=ALLTYPES&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=epinicion%20OR%20epinikion%20date%3A1940-2009&amp;f=false">puts it</a> in <em>Literature in the Greek World</em>, the <em>epinikia</em> “worked to reintegrate the victor who had so distinguished himself into his various communities.” Victory conferred immense honor on athletes, who enjoyed the support and sponsorship of the aristocracy, and so Pindar “reassured citizens that the victor wouldn’t use prestige to wield undue influence.”</p>
<p>We can also observe the negotiation of the individual and the collective, of the aristocratic and the democratic, when Pindar extols the “toil” required of victory, in contrast to any innate superiority in the athlete that might excite envy back home. In <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0162%3Abook%3DO.%3Apoem%3D5">Olympian 5</a>, Pindar observes:</p>
<blockquote>
Always, when it is a question of excellence, toil and expense strive to accomplish a deed that is shrouded in danger; those who are successful seem wise, even to their fellow citizens.
</blockquote>
<p>But in the Greek psyche, personal glory didn’t just risk alienating the athlete’s compatriots. It also presents the moral danger of <em>hubris</em>: the Greek concept of excessive arrogance and pride before the gods, “the arch-crime against the life of the Greek state,” <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0101:text=intro:section=pos=6">as one classicist dubbed it</a>. In the closing of <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0162%3Abook%3DO.%3Apoem%3D3">Olympian 3</a>, which placed another olive wreath on the head of our Theron, Pindar admonishes:</p>
<blockquote>
If water is best and gold is the most honored of all possessions, so now Theron reaches the farther point by his own native excellence; he touches the pillars of Heracles. Beyond that the wise cannot set foot; nor can the unskilled set foot beyond that. I will not pursue it; I would be a fool.
</blockquote>
<p>Philosophers, athletes, poets: In thought, feat, or verse, none should tempt <em>nemesis</em>, the force of retributive justice the Greeks believe struck down the overconfident person, who would seek “to become a god,” as Pindar phrases it in <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0162%3Abook%3DO.%3Apoem%3D5">Olympian 5</a>.</p>
<p>We can find ready parallels to Pindar’s themes of public good, toil, and hubris in our own coverage of Olympic champions today. A recent <a href="https://twitter.com/NPR/status/763013743559188480">tweet from National Public Radio</a> linked to an article: “Judoka Rafaela Silva won Brazil’s first gold, but it was all of her country’s to share.” Her victory is a public good: It brings glory to all her people, an honor many smaller nations also bask in when their athletes podium on the world stage. Commentators <a href="http://time.com/4352599/simone-biles-next-generation-leaders/">marvel</a> at how gymnast Simone Biles, as she lithely defies the air, literally and figuratively transcended a challenging early childhood to become the best in the world. Her victory is the product of toil: Olympians overcome, their superhuman athletic prowess only outmatched by their spirit and tenacity. We <a href="http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/08/micheal-phelps-hilarious-tweets-memes-rio-olympics-swimming">splash water at Michael Phelps</a>, who has added to his own record-holding decoration this Olympics, as we cheer on the athletes who can wrap themselves with no nation’s flag, the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/rio-2016-refugee-olympic-team.html">Refugee Olympic Team</a>. The victor should heed hubris: No one man, no matter how great, deserves all the glory, and so we temper triumph with humor, humility, and humanity.</p>
<p>But what is our parallel for Pindar’s poetry? As Mark Golden <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=HLORxPo6asUC&amp;pg=PA77&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=snippet&amp;q=art%20form&amp;f=false">observes</a> in <em>Sport and Society in Ancient Greece</em>, “It is an index of the importance of competition in ancient Greece that it gave rise to a distinctive art form, the victory song…” With a self-awareness remarkable for such early poetry, <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0162%3Abook%3DO.%3Apoem%3D9">Pindar often speaks</a> of his “arrows of song,” dressing his craft in metaphors of sport: “May I be a suitable finder of words as I move onward in the Muses’ chariot; may boldness and all-embracing power attend me.” In celebrating the feats of the great ancient Olympian, Pindar is seeking a lyric to match them in skill. Who a culture honors says a lot about what it values—but so does how it honors them. What is our modern-day <em>epinikion</em>? What great art form can, does, or should Olympic competition inspire in us today?</p>
<p><strong><em><a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/r/rio_olympics.html">See more of Slate’s Olympics coverage</a></em><a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/r/rio_olympics.html">.</a></strong></p>
<p><em><strong>*Update, Aug. 16, 2016: </strong>This post has been updated to include translator Diane Arnson Svarlien's full last name.</em></p>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 18:05:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/11/what_the_epinikion_teaches_us_about_how_to_celebrate_olympic_heroes.htmlJohn Kelly2016-08-11T18:05:00ZLifeWhat the Ancient
<em>Epinikion, </em>or Victory Song, Teaches Us About Olympic Athletes241160811001rio olympicsJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/11/what_the_epinikion_teaches_us_about_how_to_celebrate_olympic_heroes.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat the ancient Olympic epinikion, or victory song, can teach us about Rio:"At various times various currents, both of pleasure and toil, come to men." -- PindarGabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty ImagesMichael Phelps.Donald Trump Swears ... a Lot. What’s His Potty Mouth Really Saying?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/09/trump_s_swearing_signifies_a_hatred_of_political_correctness.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/donald-trump-swears-a-lot/#more-4209">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing. </em></p>
<p>Donald Trump swears a lot, perhaps more than any other major presidential candidate in history. I’m not sure that should bother us. Most Americans swear now and then and plenty of us swear more than Trump swears during his public appearances. I have no idea how much he swears in private; I’m pretty sure it’s none of my damned business.</p>
<p>His supporters like his swearing, even if they don’t approve of it. For one thing, because most of us swear, when Trump swears, he sounds more like us than he would if he didn’t, and we like our politicians to <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/category/unparliamentary-language/">sound like us</a>, though I’m not really sure what that means. I do know that Adlai Stevenson and Al Gore didn’t sound like enough people, so they lost big elections. I’m pretty sure they both lost.</p>
<p>One person Trump doesn’t sound like is President Barack Obama. I’m pretty sure there are Americans out there who would find it reassuring not to have a polite president who often sounds like a professor. It probably also has something to do with race. I think it would bother the people I have in mind if a black presidential candidate swore a blue streak. They don’t want black people sounding like them, or they don’t want to sound like black people—I’m not sure which, but it’s got something to do with privilege, the privilege of white folks who don’t sound like professors to say whatever the hell comes to mind, even if it’s not politically correct.</p>
<p>Because, as Trump tells us, “the big problem this country has is being politically correct.” He said that. He’s said it a lot. He’s said it almost as much as he swears. A surprising number of people believe him. A Rasmussen Report poll conducted in August 2015 reported that 71 percent of Americans agree. A quick look around suggests lots of other challenges, so many challenges that it’s hard to tell which is the big problem. It’s hard for me; it’s not hard for Trump. Well, nothing is hard for Trump. <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/what-the-fuck-is-the-a-in-fucking-a/">Fuckin’-A</a>.</p>
<p>When Trump swears, some people hear swearing, or maybe all people hear swearing, but that’s not all it is—swearing isn’t the only thing he’s doing when he swears. He’s also flouting political correctness. Some people who approve of Trump don’t approve of his swearing—they believe swearing is just wrong—and if it were anyone else, they’d clean his mouth out with soap. But they’re glad he swears, because even if it’s swearing, it’s also flouting political correctness.</p>
<p>When National Public Radio reporters interview Trump supporters and the supporters say they wish he wouldn’t swear but actually they’re glad he does—because political correctness—it sounds like a contradiction. Actually, it’s a fine-grained linguistic distinction between a sign and what it signifies. When I eat bratwurst—which is always too big for the bun—and put too much chipotle ketchup on it and try to eat it while I’m watching television and I bite into it and ketchup drops onto my T-shirt and I say “Shit!” I don’t mean there’s excrement on my T-shirt. I don’t even mean ketchup is on my T-shirt. I just mean I’m really frustrated because that stain is never going to come out. I say “Shit!” but it’s not the same shit as <em>shit</em> “excrement,” or <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/add-shit-and-stir/">the –<em>shit</em> in <em>apeshit </em>“crazy</a>,” or the <em>shit</em>– in <em>shithead</em> “idiot” or <em>shitfaced</em> “drunk”—same sign, different significations. I mean, <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/what-the-fuck-is-the-the-in-the-fuck/">WTF</a>, NPR?</p>
<p>So, when Trump says of American corporations that relocate overseas to take advantage of favorable tax rates that they can go fuck themselves, you may think he’s swearing, but what he’s really saying is, “I agree publicly with all of you who say privately that they should go fuck themselves, because fuck political correctness.” When he says that if he becomes president he’ll bomb the shit out of the Islamic State, he may mean that he’ll bomb ISIS until it’s gone, sure, he might mean that, but he also means he doesn’t give a shit about people who think he shouldn’t say <em>shit</em> and other politically incorrect things they think he shouldn’t say or do.</p>
<p>Lots of presidents have sworn on more than the inaugural Bible and the Constitution. Harry S. Truman was known to swear, and so were Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon. George W. Bush swears and Dick Cheney swears, and they’ve both been caught swearing. John Kerry has sworn into the microphone by accident, too, but he lost when he ran for the presidency, which some think goes to show that you can’t swear while campaigning. It’s inappropriate. Think of the children. Swearing while campaigning is politically incorrect, and you can’t be politically incorrect if you want to be president of the United States.</p>
<p>But Trump can swear. And I’d rather he swear, so that we know what he really thinks. Because if candidates are merely being polite while campaigning, if they swear all the time before and after the elections, then they are just lying about themselves during the campaign, and I don’t think candidates should lie even more than I don’t think they should swear.</p>
<p>Swearing is a great way to set up Secretary Clinton in the general election, because Americans who support Trump and applaud his swearing won’t put up with swearing from a woman any more than from a black man, at least not in public. Privately, Secretary Clinton swears, but I don’t know if she swears a lot. I’m pretty sure it’s none of my damned business. Detractors will use it against her. Take that, Hillary Clinton who wants to be the first woman president of the United States, you are not allowed to be an asshole like Trump, because you embody political correctness—you are the big problem this country has. I’m pretty sure that’s how Trump and his followers feel.</p>
<p>As a rule of thumb, when people argue about whether language is appropriate or someone’s grammar is correct, they’re probably not really arguing about language. In the case of swearing, we’re worried about decency or manners and the validity of social relations that manners support or—from another point of view—impose or enforce. Trump’s manners? Let me tell you something about Trump’s manners. They’re terrible. They’re disgusting. They’re a disgrace. He should be in prison for those manners. If I’m ever elected president, I’m going to bomb the shit out of Donald Trump’s manners, you can be sure of that. Make no mistake. In the meantime, Trump’s swearing is a distraction and it’s a proxy for arguments about class, distribution of wealth, race, women’s reproductive rights, political correctness, ethnicity, immigration, you name it—anyway, something we’re unwilling to confront directly because we’re unwilling to love our neighbors as ourselves. I’m pretty sure that’s the big problem this country has.</p>
<p><em><strong>See also: <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/sweary-maps-2-swear-harder/" title="Sweary maps 2: Swear harder You may remember Jack Grieve’s swear maps of the USA. Now he has a nifty new web app called Word Mapper that lets anyone with an internet connection make use of the raw data behind those maps. Being a mature grown-up, I put on my @stronglang hat and went searching…">Sweary Maps 2: Swear Harder</a></strong></em></p>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:52:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/09/trump_s_swearing_signifies_a_hatred_of_political_correctness.htmlMichael Adams2016-08-09T15:52:00ZLifeDonald Trump Swears ... a Lot. What’s His Potty Mouth Really Saying?241160809001donald trump2016 campaignlanguageMichael AdamsLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/09/trump_s_swearing_signifies_a_hatred_of_political_correctness.htmlfalsefalsefalseDonald Trump swears a lot. What's he really saying?Toward a unified theory of Trump's potty mouth.Jeff J Mitchell/Getty ImagesProbably midswear.1/ Everyone Is Composing Long, Numbered, Slash-y Threads on Twitter. 2/2 Here’s Why.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/04/toward_a_unified_theory_of_the_tweetstorm.html
<p>This summer, Twitter has been awash in a certain enumerated discourse. It goes like this: </p>
<p>1/ Many tweeters are using the medium to share ideas longer and more complex than any single tweet can contain. This is known as a <a href="http://twitter.about.com/od/Twitter-Basics/fl/What-is-a-Tweetstorm.htm">tweetstorm</a>.</p>
<p>2/ Now, some of these tweetstorms unfold as a <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshuaGuess/status/758424762620252161">numbered sequence</a>: 1., 2., 3., n., …</p>
<p>3/ But increasingly common is the <a href="http://www.internetlivestats.com/twitter-statistics/">use of the slash</a>: 1/, 2/, 3/, n/, …</p>
<p>4/ While emerging as a space-saving device, the slash is also starting to act like a <a href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/discourse-markers-so-right-okay">discourse marker</a>, or a verbal signpost that helps organize our communication.</p>
<p>5/5 Let’s call it the “soapbox slash.”</p>
<p>First, the mechanics of the slash. As the last item above makes plain, the slash stands for “out of”: This is the fifth out of five tweets in total. Tweeters tend to specify the total number throughout for a shorter series, e.g., 1/3, 2/3. Here, the impression is that they’ve simply run up against Twitter’s 140-character limit.</p>
<p>For a longer thread, though, it’s harder for tweeters to map out precisely how many tweets they will need. At first, they turned to a <a href="http://twitter.com/mashedradish">mathier shorthand</a>, 1/x: This is one of an indefinite number of upcoming, interconnected tweets. Then, users vanished the x, squeezing out room for an extra character.</p>
<p>But the slash has become more than a matter of economy and a way to coordinate and concatenate thoughts—it’s also marking discourse. With 1/_, the tweeter takes the floor, adjusts the mic stand, clears her throat, and prefaces: I’ve got something I’d like to say.</p>
<p>Why Twitter? Why take to a platform defined by restriction to wax polemical? Why not whip up and link to a quick post on WordPress, Tumblr, Facebook, Medium, or other outlets where the real estate isn’t at a premium?</p>
<p>Very often, a 1/_ issues a timely, impassioned response to a sensitive and controversial phenomenon in the news: race, class, gender, <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshuaMound/status/760501514422976512">politics</a>, or <a href="https://twitter.com/jenanmoussa/status/755485890684784641">terrorism</a>. This response is too political for Facebook, too expository for the image-heavy likes of Tumblr, and too pressing and extemporaneous to consign to an article or blog post. Think of it as a hot take, but one that features exposition and argumentation, trying to connect the more nuanced and complicated dots of some bigger societal picture. It is a think piece. It is a hot take. It is a live-tweeted hot-take think piece.</p>
<p>And Twitter has become the ideal home for this nascent, discursive misfit. The platform is urgent and conversational and alive to what’s happening in the world. When the tweeter at last steps off the digital soapbox, she triumphantly fills in that ghosted divisor: 17/17, pumpf, the final number evoking a visual mic drop. Like Twitter’s other wildly successful symbol, the hashtag, one can even imagine “one-slash” creeping into speech as an ironic, meta-reference.</p>
<p>Blame it on Trump. Blame it on Brexit. Blame it on what you will, but:</p>
<p>1/ <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2016/07/is_2016_the_worst_year_in_history.html">2016</a> has already been palpably, gloomily, fatiguingly over-newsed.</p>
<p>2/ While tweeters have long been taking to Twitter with tweetstorms,</p>
<p>3/ perhaps this year’s salvos of unpredictable, unprecedented events has pushed people to try to order the chaos</p>
<p>4/4 figuratively and literally.</p>Thu, 04 Aug 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/04/toward_a_unified_theory_of_the_tweetstorm.htmlJohn Kelly2016-08-04T13:30:00ZLife1/ Everyone Is Composing Long, Numbered, Slash-y Threads on Twitter. 2/2 Here’s Why.241160804001twitterJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/04/toward_a_unified_theory_of_the_tweetstorm.htmlfalsefalsefalseHere's why everyone is composing long, numbered, slash-y threads on Twitter:Toward a unified theory of the tweetstorm.Valery Hache/AFP/Getty ImagesToward a grand, unified theory of the tweetstorm.Can Mel Gibson Pull Off a Portrayal of OED Editor James Murray?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/03/mel_gibson_will_star_in_an_adaptation_of_the_professor_and_the_madman_but.html
<p>The news came as something of a shock to the dictionary world: As announced in the <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/mel-gibson-sean-penn-star-915878"><em>Hollywood Reporter</em></a>, Mel Gibson is set to star as James Augustus Henry Murray, the first principal editor of the <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>, in an adaptation of Simon Winchester’s entertaining book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060836261/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Professor and the Madman</a></em>, based on a true (but unbelievable) story.</p>
<p>Sean Penn is expected to play the titular madman, William Chester Minor, an American army surgeon who supplied Murray with <a href="http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/02/william-minor/">countless citations for the OED</a> from his cell in the Broadmoor insane asylum, where he was incarcerated after killing a man on the streets of London in 1872.</p>
<p>Penn as Minor is a reasonable bit of casting. But can Gibson pull off a portrayal of Murray, one of the patron saints of lexicography? Given his off-screen history of hateful comments, run-ins with the law, and alcohol abuse, he might strike moviegoers as more of a madman than a professor.</p>
<p>It turns out Gibson cast himself in the role, as he was the one to option Winchester’s book after it was first published in 1998. Even then, he saw himself in the role of James Murray. <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-03-08/features/0103080017_1_murray-and-minor-simon-winchester-words">Dustin Hoffman</a> was originally supposed to play Minor, and Luc Besson and John Boorman (who wrote a draft of the screenplay) considered directing the film.</p>
<p>Now that Gibson is reviving plans for the movie a decade and a half later, with backing from Voltage Pictures, he has tapped Farhad Safinia to direct. Safinia co-wrote Gibson’s 2006 film <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NOKFHQ/?tag=slatmaga-20">Apocalypto</a></em>, which, you might recall, was shot in Mexico entirely in the indigenous language of <a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003868.html">Yucatec Maya</a>. And before that he attempted to use reconstructed Aramaic in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004YKGUX8/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Passion of the Christ.</a></em> So this is hardly Mel’s first language-related pet project.</p>
<p>Gibson, an Americanized Australian, is difficult to picture as Murray, a mild-mannered Scottish philologist. In old photos, Murray grins wryly, framed by his academic cap and long white beard, typically surrounded by rows and rows of OED quotation slips in his <a href="http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/02/james-murray/">Scriptorium</a>.</p>
<p>Of course, when Gibson got the rights to <em>The Professor and the Madman</em> back in 1998, he was coming off a portrayal of another Scotsman, William Wallace in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0671522817/?tag=slatmaga-20">Braveheart</a></em>. But Murray is no Wallace. You can’t imagine him bellowing, <em><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEOOZDbMrgE">Braveheart</a></em><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEOOZDbMrgE"> style</a>, “I am James Murray, and I see a whole army of my countrymen here in the service of lexicography. They make take our lives, but they'll never take our headwords!”</p>
<p>Regardless of how Gibson fares in tackling Murray, this will undoubtedly be the highest-profile depiction of a lexicographer in cinematic history. Granted, there haven’t been many. Linguists in general get the occasional film role, like the phonetician Henry Higgins portrayed by Leslie Howard in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1503290905/?tag=slatmaga-20">Pygmalion</a></em> and Rex Harrison in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140013644/?tag=slatmaga-20">My Fair Lady</a></em>. More recently there was Julianne Moore in her Oscar-winning turn in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1501107739/?tag=slatmaga-20">Still Alice</a></em>, playing Dr. Alice Howland of the Columbia linguistics department. (Let’s ignore the fact that Columbia doesn’t have a linguistics department.)</p>
<p>But dictionary-makers get even less attention on the silver screen. Thus far, the only major Hollywood role that I know of is Gary Cooper as Professor Potts in the rollicking 1941 Howard Hawks comedy, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000NIBUT4/?tag=slatmaga-20">Ball of Fire</a></em>. Potts is working on the slang entry for an encyclopedia and decides he needs to do some fieldwork to learn the latest expressions. He goes to a nightclub, where he gets mixed up with a slang-slinging showgirl named Sugarpuss O’Shea, played by Barbara Stanwyck. Hijinks, needless to say, <a href="http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/377588/Ball-Of-Fire-Movie-Clip-What-Does-Boogie-Mean-.html">ensue</a>.</p>
<p>(And speaking of lexicographers gamely deciphering slang, none other than Noah Webster makes an appearance in the 1951 MGM cartoon <em><a href="https://vimeo.com/100989067">Symphony in Slang</a></em>, directed by Tex Avery. In heaven, Webster is called upon by a gatekeeper to interpret the life story of a man who talks in colorful contemporary idioms. Poor Noah is left dumbfounded.)</p>
<p>The Murray-Minor story is ripe for a cinematic retelling, however. As I observed in a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/opinion/lies-murder-lexicography-dictionary.html"><em>New York Times</em> op-ed piece</a> in 2012, what gets peddled as “scandalous” or “controversial” in the dictionary world often turns out to be rather humdrum. But Minor’s involvement in the creation of the OED after being locked away for murder is a truly riveting tale, as Gibson no doubt realized as soon as he read Winchester’s narrative. Let’s hope that he can do justice to Murray, a beloved figure in the history of lexicography, when he dons the signature black cap and white beard.</p>Wed, 03 Aug 2016 15:51:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/03/mel_gibson_will_star_in_an_adaptation_of_the_professor_and_the_madman_but.htmlBen Zimmer2016-08-03T15:51:00ZLifeCan Mel Gibson Pull Off a Portrayal of
<em>OED</em> Editor James Murray?241160803001movieslinguisticsBen ZimmerLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/03/mel_gibson_will_star_in_an_adaptation_of_the_professor_and_the_madman_but.htmlfalsefalsefalseCan Mel Gibson pull off a portrayal of OED editor James Murray?Given his off-screen history of hateful comments, run-ins with the law, and alcohol abuse, he might strike moviegoers as more of a madman than a professor.We Play DifferentJames Murray.How Did Gold Stars Come to Represent Grieving Military Families?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/01/how_did_gold_stars_come_to_represent_grieving_military_families.html
<p>The families of 17 American soldiers slain in action <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/gold-star-families-attack-trump-over-comments-about-ghazala-khan-n620671">delivered a letter</a> to Donald Trump on Monday demanding that the Republican nominee for president apologize for his comments about gold star parents—and Democratic National Convention guests—<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/28/khizr_khan_s_message_to_donald_trump_was_the_most_damning_moment_of_dnc.html">Khizr and Ghazala Khan</a>. If you somehow missed this utterly insane and depressing story, Trump blew his chance to react with grace to the Muslim lawyer’s poignant tribute to his son Humayun, an Army captain who died in Iraq protecting his base from a truck filled with explosives. Smarting from Khan’s accusation that he had “sacrificed nothing and no one,” Trump first insinuated that Ghazala Khan, standing on stage beside her husband in a clear show of support, didn’t speak because, as a Muslim woman, she wasn’t allowed to have an opinion. (She later clarified that her <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ghazala-khan-donald-trump-criticized-my-silence-he-knows-nothing-about-true-sacrifice/2016/07/31/c46e52ec-571c-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html">silence flowed from sorrow</a>.) Then he compared the vicissitudes of his own career—decades of catered boardroom meetings, luxurious galas, fancy flights—to the sacrifice endured by military families who’ve lost their loved ones.</p>
<p>In the letter, the gold star families, led by Karen Meredith of VoteVets.org, <a href="http://www.votevets.org/press/gold-star-letter">called</a> Trump’s remarks “repugnant and personally offensive.” Veterans of Foreign Wars also issued a <a href="http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2016-Articles/VFW-Supports-Gold-Star-Families/">statement</a> Monday, saying, “to ridicule a Gold Star Mother is out-of-bounds. … Election year or not, the VFW will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression.” And as the controversy has grown, the phrases “<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%22gold%20star%20mother%22&amp;src=typd">gold star mother</a>” and “<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%22gold%20star%20family%22&amp;src=typd">gold star family</a>” have erupted on social media.</p>
<p>But how did gold stars come to represent grieving military families? (And has Trump ever met a sidereal symbol he couldn’t turn into a controversy <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/03/trump-s-hillary-meme-was-made-by-racist-twitter-user.html">about his own bigotry and political incompetence</a>?)</p>
<p>Many of us are more familiar with the sarcastic use of “gold star”—as in, “Millennials want a gold star for every kabocha squash they compost.” And yet the origins of the military gold star reach back to the <a href="http://www.bluestarmothers.org/service-flag">service flag</a>, a banner first flown during World War I by households that had sent loved ones to fight. The simple white pennant, bordered in red, glowed with a deep blue star for every living soldier, and a gilt one for each soldier who had died. In May 1918, President Wilson approved a motion put forth by the Women’s Committee of the Council of National Defenses proposing that U.S. mothers, sisters, and daughters wear a black band with a gold star on their left arms in lieu of traditional mourning garb. In 1928, the bereaved mom Grace Darling Seibold, a D.C. native, founded a national organization she called American Gold Star Mothers to help support military families and provide care for returning veterans.</p>
<p>The United States entered fresh conflicts, and the gold star continued to blaze as a badge of mingled pride and grief. President Roosevelt declared the last Sunday in September “Gold Star Mothers Day” in 1936. World War II brought the gold star wives and an official gold star lapel button. In the ’60s, activist Eleanor Boyd even created the Gold Star Manor in Long Beach, California, a 348-unit retirement home for parents of fallen military men and women.</p>
<p>In 2005, the emblem sneaked into the heraldry of antiwar activism with the creation of the Gold Star Families for Peace, an organization founded by Cindy and Patrick Sheehan and devoted to ending the occupation of Iraq. But perhaps one of the most interesting recent twists for the gold star—at least in the context of this election—has been its evolving relationship to family members that are not U.S. citizens.</p>
<p>American Gold Star Mothers restricted enrollment to those born or naturalized in the United States for the first 77 years of its existence. In 2005, it <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8014030/ns/us_news/#.V591kpOANBc">rejected the application</a> of Ligaya Lagman, a Filipino woman who paid taxes and lived in New York; her son, Anthony, had died in Afghanistan on a mission to rout the last few fighters from a Taliban campsite. The outcry against the decision—and particularly against a cavalier quote from national president Ann Herd, who said “There’s nothing we can do. … We can’t go changing the rules every time the wind blows”—attracted the attention of politicians, including a certain female senator. “We now have many noncitizens serving honorably in our armed services,” Hillary Clinton scolded the mothers at the time.</p>
<p>Several months later, Gold Star Mothers accepted its first noncitizen: the Jamaican-born Carmen Palmer, whose 22-year-old son was killed in Iraq in 2003. And now a coalition of gold star families are speaking up on behalf of the Khans—American citizens, of course, but also Muslims more likely to be targeted by all-too-familiar waves of racism and prejudice.</p>
<p>With every advance like this, the always-honorable gold star shines brighter.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/c/2016_campaign.html"><strong><em>Read more Slate coverage of the 2016 campaign.</em></strong></a></p>Mon, 01 Aug 2016 20:26:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/01/how_did_gold_stars_come_to_represent_grieving_military_families.htmlKaty Waldman2016-08-01T20:26:00ZLifeHow Did Gold Stars Come to Represent Grieving Military Families?241160801001iraq warmilitary2016 campaignKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/08/01/how_did_gold_stars_come_to_represent_grieving_military_families.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow did gold stars come to represent grieving military families?The gold star is a badge of mingled pride and grief.Michael Loccisano/Getty ImagesAydin Deboer, right, whose father is a fallen member of the Army and whose mom is a gold star mother, attends the Veteran's Day Parade on Nov. 11, 2012, in New York City.Why Did a ​Pearls Before Swine Strip About ISIS Get Spiked? A Slate Investigation.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/29/why_did_a_pearls_before_swine_comic_about_isis_never_make_it_into_papers.html
<p>On Thursday, Stephan Pastis, who pens the comic <em>Pearls Before Swine</em>, tweeted that one of his strips <a href="https://twitter.com/stephanpastis/status/758471559950368768">had been rejected</a> in these, our “sensitive times”:</p>
<p>In the strip, a na&iuml;ve pig’s effort to correct his sister’s grammar moves him to cry “I, sis” into the phone. Naturally, the National Security Agency is alarmed and leads the pig away in handcuffs. (Imagine that Aesop got sunstroke and then tried to illustrate a cautionary fable against pedantry.) It was hard to tell from the tweet whether the syndicate was concerned that the strip was mocking the government, trivializing ISIS, or trafficking in terminally not-funny wordplay. When I reached out to Pastis for an explanation, he unbosomed the backstory.</p>
<p><em>Pearls</em> runs in newspapers across the country, and Pastis, who says he’s never run a repeat in 15 years, files completed strips weeks or months ahead of their publication date. After he submitted the “ISIS” panel, a representative of his syndicate contacted him to warn that if some kind of terrorist event occurred on or near the day that the strip was slated to appear, he’d become a “lightning rod for readers’ anger and sadness.”</p>
<p>“Oddly enough, people think the artist is commenting on that day’s events, even though he or she has sent in the work up to eight weeks in advance,” Pastis continued. The newspapers couldn’t risk such a painful coincidence.</p>
<p>There’s also the twisty matter of media sensibilities. Pastis, a creature of the buttoned-up print world, sometimes yearns to channel the subversions of the web. “I wish I could have a fraction of the edginess of the online guys,” he admitted. “Internet writers don’t realize how extraordinarily tame newspapers can be. You reference Lincoln’s assassination, and readers shout, ‘Too soon!’ It’s a different world, and it’s inhabited by your parents and grandparents.”</p>
<p>John Glynn, of the Universal Uclick syndicate that handles Pastis’ work, confirmed that “there’s lots of sensitivity—the strip would have caused serious problems if it had been coupled with a terrorist event.” Though Universal has never outright rejected a <em>Pearls </em>panel, the group has sent advisory notes back to Pastis and various newspaper editors cautioning them against publishing particular comics. They tend to shy away from themes of “drugs, drinking, sex—for lack of a better word, anything beyond PG-13,” Glynn said. Pastis remembered one message that reprimanded him for using the word <em>midget</em>, even though the strip itself only evoked the term to highlight its inappropriateness. (“You should say ‘little person,’ ” a character explains.) But Pastis is not interested in fighting his editors’ decisions. “That’s how it works,” he said. “What I think is great is how this story has taken off on Twitter, how it’s generating discussion and allowing the online world to see what the world of traditional media is all about.”</p>
<p>After all, “this was simply one of my dumb plays on words,” Pastis added. “I wasn’t trying to say anything more. I heard the words and realized I could make a pun.”</p>
<p>OK. This is all very plausible and sane. But could it be that Universal Uclick bagged the strip because it’s not, well … because it, ah, it, you know, it’s not …</p>
<p>Did they kill the strip because it’s not funny?</p>
<p>The syndicate does not monitor comics for quality, Glynn insisted. “We’re too busy.”</p>
<p>Really? You can tell us.</p>
<p>“Yes, really.”</p>
<p>Off the record?</p>
<p>“We’re too busy saying how good they are.”</p>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:54:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/29/why_did_a_pearls_before_swine_comic_about_isis_never_make_it_into_papers.htmlKaty Waldman2016-07-29T15:54:00ZLifeWhy Did a
<em>​Pearls Before Swine</em> Strip About ISIS Get Spiked? A
<em><strong>Slate</strong></em> Investigation.241160729001a slate investigationcomic stripsKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/29/why_did_a_pearls_before_swine_comic_about_isis_never_make_it_into_papers.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy did a Pearls Before Swine strip about ISIS get spiked? A Slate investigation.A few reasons.Charley Gallay/Getty ImagesCartoonist Stephan Pastis appears at the 12th Annual L.A. Times Festival of Books.Clinton’s New “Trash-Talk” Line Is the Perfect Weapon Against Trumphttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/28/clinton_s_new_trash_talk_line_is_a_great_way_to_underscore_trump_s_bigotry.html
<p>All summer long, commentators have been describing Donald Trump’s campaign as a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/06/22/donald_trump_is_much_less_impressive_than_a_good_scandinavian_garbage_fire.html">dumpster fire</a>, but there’s a new garbage-related metaphor igniting on the trail: <em>trash-talk</em>. In his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djm2u9gyY9k">debut speech</a> at a Miami rally over the weekend, Clinton’s running mate, Tim Kaine, worked supporters: “Do you want a trash-talking president or a bridge-building president?” Then, he doubled down: “Donald Trump trash-talks folks with disabilities. Trash-talks Mexican-Americans and Latinos. … Trash-talks women. Trash-talks our allies.” Winning the desired boos, he finished with a twist: “He doesn’t trash-talk everybody. He likes Vladimir Putin.”</p>
<p>Clinton herself has since cottoned to Kaine’s use of <em>trash-talking</em>.<em> </em><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?413171-1/hillary-clinton-addresses-veterans-foreign-wars-national-convention">Speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars this week</a>, she answered Trump’s convention speech, which composed a dark portrait of America. Fully broadening the targets Kaine identified in his trash-talk, <a href="http://www.apple.com">Clinton objected</a>: “I don’t understand people who trash-talk America, who act as though we are not yet the greatest country.” As the presidential race careens from the conventions to the general election, we’ll be sure to see plenty more actual trash-talking between the nominees. But we should also expect to hear more of the trash-talk line from the Clinton camp. It’s an effective packet of rhetoric, imagery, personal appeal, and cultural history.</p>
<p>The word <em>trash-talk</em> packs a strong rhetorical punch. It doesn’t just concisely characterize Trump’s language as <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/donald_trump_is_unfit_to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html">bigoted</a>, as we saw in Kaine’s trash-talking crescendo. It also hits back on loaded implications the Clinton campaign finds in Trump’s wider messaging: “Make America Great Again.” To many, this slogan’s adverbial anchor, <em>again</em>, <a href="http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a55305/make-america-great-again-donald-trump/">implies</a> America isn’t great anymore, with Clinton specifically charging that it devalues the hard work and efforts of everyday Americans. By calling out such language as <em>trash-talk</em>, she also threads together who Trump trash-talks<em> </em>with why he is trash-talking them, i.e., America isn’t great anymore because of immigrants. Rhetorically, Clinton’s usage of <em>trash-talk</em> upends Trump’s sloganeering as covert scapegoating and fearmongering.</p>
<p>The word <em>trash-talk</em> also carries an evocative image. The Clinton campaign can—and does—avail itself of any number of words to describe Trump’s verbiage: <em>insulting</em>, <em>bullying</em>, <em>offensive</em>, <em>divisive</em>. (Others would surely add <em>racist</em>, <em>sexist</em>, <em>vulgar</em>, and <em>xenophobic </em>to the list.) These modifiers, regardless of accuracy, are abstract. But <em>trash-talk</em>, owing, of course, to its core metaphor, runs on garbage. In depicting his language as <em>trash-talk</em>, Clinton and Kaine challenge voters, “Who is Trump to speak about America as if it’s garbage?” On the one hand, the image arouses indignation and outrage. On the other hand, it brands Trump as a someone who treats people as if they are <a href="https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=4&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjJ1-7Fj5POAhVpIsAKHWf_B0wQFggvMAM&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fmagazine%2F2016%2F07%2F25%2Fdonald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all&amp;usg=AFQjCNEiYZCz6FyBwIl0LQVnDC2i_t1Low">disposable</a>.</p>
<p>Through stereotypes and generalizations, one can easily disparage whole groups of people. Trump has done this. But talking trash is different. Take, for example, “<a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-jeb-bush-low-energy-2015-11?r=US&amp;IR=T">Low-energy Jeb,</a>” one of the stickier epithets Trump issued earlier in the race. “Low-energy” indicts former candidate Jeb Bush’s personality, not his ability to govern. It’s taunting. It’s below the belt. It’s going-out-the-way name-calling. It’s personal. But as a word, <em>trash-talk </em>is also personal. It’s gritty. It’s street. It’s playful. It’s vernacular. By labeling it as <em>trash-talk</em>, Clinton portrays Trump’s language as personal attacks on Americans without herself making a personal attack, all while sounding personal.</p>
<p>Finally, we’ve become so inured to trash-talking in politics that it’s easy to forget where <em>trash-talking</em> first originated: sports. The <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> first finds the term <em>trash-talking </em>in reference to baseball back in the early 1970s. <a href="http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/10360951/the-art-trash-talking">Sports-based bad-mouthing</a>, no doubt, has a rich history and culture. <a href="http://www.apple.com">Muhammad Ali</a>, for instance, flexed political and poetic power with his boasting. But trash-talking can also serve up bread and circuses. To its targets, talking trash is a mind game, using detractions to create distractions. To its viewers, trash-talking is a form of theater, creating spectacle out of conflict. From World Wrestling Entertainment and <em>The Apprentice </em>to his debates, rallies, and tweeting, Trump has made trash-talking a sport all its own. In deploying the term, Clinton’s <em>trash-talk</em> ties Trump’s language back to entertainment and gamesmanship. It moves the spotlight from the offensiveness of the trashing to the seriousness of the talker: Is the U.S. presidency, Clinton’s <em>trash-talk</em> asks, just another show, just another contest for Donald Trump? If so, he’s playing a dangerous game.</p>Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/28/clinton_s_new_trash_talk_line_is_a_great_way_to_underscore_trump_s_bigotry.htmlJohn Kelly2016-07-28T13:00:00ZLifeClinton’s New “Trash-Talk”
<em> </em>Line Is the Perfect Weapon Against Trump241160728001hillary clinton2016 campaignJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/28/clinton_s_new_trash_talk_line_is_a_great_way_to_underscore_trump_s_bigotry.htmlfalsefalsefalseClinton’s new trash-talk line is the perfect weapon against Trump:Clinton portrays Trump’s language as personal attacks on Americans without herself making a personal attack, all while sounding personal.Alex Wong/Getty ImagesHillary Clinton.What Should We Call Bill Clinton if Hillary Is Elected?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/27/what_will_we_call_bill_clinton_if_hillary_is_elected_president.html
<p>What should we call Bill Clinton if Hillary is elected?</p>
<p>First gentleman</p>
<p>First gent</p>
<p>First husband</p>
<p><a href="http://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/trail-news/palin-mccain-to-bring-first-dude-to-white-house/">First dude</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.quora.com/If-the-United-States-has-a-female-president-will-her-husband-be-called-the-first-gentleman-What-will-Bill-Clinton-be-called-if-Hillary-is-elected">First mate</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-190267,00.html">First consort</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20070708/NEWS/107080094">First laddie</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/28/first-man-first-dude-adam-the-tbd-title-of-the-first-male-white-house-spouse/%20http:/www.politico.com/story/2015/01/bill-clinton-rachael-ray-114652.html#ixzz3Q7w2MLN6">Adam</a></p>
<p>First Bubba</p>
<p>First lord (FLOTUS)</p>
<p>First man to be married to a president of the USA</p>
<p>Adjacent man</p>
<p>you</p>
<p>Dude prime</p>
<p>Dude-o primo</p>
<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harlow-giles-unger/how-his-highness-presidents-day_b_4784011.html">His Highness, the President of the United States, and Protector of the Rights of the Same</a> (HHTPOFTUSAPOTROTS)</p>
<p>HIPPOPOTAPOTUS</p>
<p>HIPPOPOTUSPOTATO</p>
<p><a href="http://www.victorianweb.org/previctorian/keats/urn.text.html">Thou still unravished bride of quietness</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvsmANMfEbw">Jerry!</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9_8YxDQYCo">Newman!</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/aaaaaalvin/">AAAAAAAAAALVIIIIIIN!</a></p>
<p>Roger Spelman, a 35-year-old insurance salesman from Boise</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEH9I_oJfqY">Aaron Burr, sir</a></p>
<p>42</p>
<p>395.8</p>
<p>휋</p>
<p>&macr;\_(ツ)_/&macr;</p>
<p>Do you smell that?</p>
<p>I guess Thai is fine.</p>
<p>Why did no one like my Facebook post?</p>
<p>Have you ever fantasized about forcing 19<sup>th</sup>-century slave-owners into a time machine and taking them to a Beyonc&eacute; concert?</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo">Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo</a></p>
<p>Clicks! Clicks? Clicks!</p>
<p>Will someone please let me out?</p>
<p>MY GOD IT’S SO DARK</p>
<p>10,000 ghosts of the exact same article about what to call Bill Clinton when Hillary is elected</p>
<p>I just don’t know anymore</p>
<p>I</p>
<p>just</p>
<p>don’t</p>
<p>know</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>it’s</p>
<p>so</p>
<p>ungodly</p>
<p>dark</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Mr. Clinton</p>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 23:20:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/27/what_will_we_call_bill_clinton_if_hillary_is_elected_president.htmlKaty Waldman2016-07-27T23:20:00ZLifeWhat Should We Call Bill Clinton if Hillary Is Elected?2411607270022016 campaignhillary clintonKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/27/what_will_we_call_bill_clinton_if_hillary_is_elected_president.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat should we call Bill Clinton if Hillary—OH GOD NO STOP????Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images???Why “Change-Maker” Is Such an Effective Slogan for Hillary Clintonhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/27/bill_clinton_calls_hillary_a_change_maker_and_we_approve.html
<p>In an <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/bill_clinton_s_long_beautiful_speech_at_the_dnc.html">ambling love letter of a convention speech</a> on Tuesday, Bill Clinton summoned all of his ramshackle charm and warmth to build a case for his wife Hillary, who is running for president. The Southern raconteur poured on the folksiness. Change “sure is” hard, he said. And yet Hillary Clinton works tirelessly to enact it, from her time as an attorney representing the poor and sick to her busy, productive tenure as first lady of Arkansas and then of the country. Hillary “is the best darn change-maker I ever met in our entire life,” Bill said, as Dems in the audience waved “change-maker” signs. The next morning, commenters were hailing the&nbsp;“<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-07-27/did-bill-clinton-s-change-maker-speech-work">change-maker speech</a>.”</p>
<p>Change-maker? We can get the jokes out of the way first. <a href="http://www.globalvendinggroup.com/products/Paramount-VM010-Bill-Changer.html?gclid=Cj0KEQjwt-G8BRDktsvwpPTn1PkBEiQA-MRsBVLhZXHoXUa7VOlIKCsS8LOUpmXQ-qLHW3n5zhpic2UaArx08P8HAQ">This</a> is a change-maker. In many pockets (heh) of our great land, a change-maker just means a human cashier. But even if Clinton’s coinage (heh again) doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue—it evokes both Bush’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irMeHmlxE9s"><em>decider</em></a> and Pat Benatar’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEZKE19eu-E">Heartbreaker</a>”—it still did profound, effective work in Philadelphia.</p>
<p>Obama, of course, was the candidate of Hope and Change in 2008. When he arrived in office only to face congressional gridlock, an anemic economy, and an endless stream of mass shootings and terror, the dreamy electorate felt its hopes dashed. So Clinton’s focus on the “change” part of the equation asserts a welcome pragmatism, a commitment to tangible <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/how_show_me_the_receipts_became_a_catchphrase_for_holding_the_powerful_accountable.html">receipts</a>.</p>
<p>Crucially, the former president’s speech functioned not only as an <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/bill_clinton_s_2016_dnc_speech_was_an_attempt_to_humanize_hillary_will_voters.html">awkward, lovely kiss blown to his wife</a> but as a record of her many specific accomplishments, from state education reform to new laws supporting employees with disabilities. “You can drop her into any trouble spot— – pick one— – come back in a month and somehow, some way, she will have made it better,” Clinton promised. “That is just who she is.”</p>
<p>Clinton’s unstoppable “change-making” stands in stark contrast to Trump’s disturbing ideological slipperiness, his unwillingness to propose specific policies or solutions. She is a known quantity, an independent variable acting on the American experiment in demonstrable ways.</p>
<p>Yet <em>change</em> acquired a soaring, politicized valence during the Obama campaign, and Clinton would have been foolish to abandon those loftier associations.&nbsp;Hillary may be a practical, roll-up-your-sleeves candidate with tons of experience, but she is also a symbol. And so Bill didn’t call her a “changer,” someone who just, you know, changes things. That usage would have spotlighted <em>change </em>as a workaday verb, often taking an object, as in “changing the sheets.” Instead, Clinton reached for the abstract, as befits a historic moment: The first female presidential nominee of a major party is a “change-maker,” a person who controls a beautiful and important political force called Change, like the custodian of some sacred vestal fire. “If you win elections on the theory that government is always bad and will mess up a two car parade, a real change-maker represents a real threat,” Clinton said. He cast change as powerful, mythic, and American—a tide that sweeps out the corrupt and ineffective, moving inexorably in the right direction. </p>Wed, 27 Jul 2016 19:05:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/27/bill_clinton_calls_hillary_a_change_maker_and_we_approve.htmlKaty Waldman2016-07-27T19:05:00ZLifeWhy “Change-Maker” Is Such an Effective Slogan for Hillary Clinton241160727001hillary clintonKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/27/bill_clinton_calls_hillary_a_change_maker_and_we_approve.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy "change-maker" is such an effective slogan for Hillary Clinton:Bill didn’t call her a “changer,” someone who just, you know, changes things. That usage would have spotlighted change as a workaday verb, often taking an object, as in “changing the sheets.” Instead, Clinton reached for the abstract, as befits a historic moment: The first female presidential nominee of a major party is a “change-maker,” a person who controls a beautiful and important political force called Change, like the custodian of some sacred vestal fire.Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty ImagesProud husband of a change-makerBrexit Blends Caught Fire. Why Haven’t Pok&eacute;mon Portmanteaus?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/22/why_aren_t_there_more_pok_mon_portmanteaus_out_there.html
<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/07/a_comprehensive_guide_to_pokemon_go.html"><em>Pok&eacute;mon Go</em></a>, Nintendo’s new augmented reality game for smartphones, seems primed for wordplay. Equal parts beloved and bemoaned, the overnight hit is <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2016/07/15/pokemon-gos-retention-rates-average-revenue-per-user-are-double-the-industry-average/">smashing records</a>, grabbing headlines, and even <a href="http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/a-robbery-too-pokemon-go-crimes-criminals-warnings-problems-solved-wave-robberies-robbery-death-dead-body-injuries-accidents-driving-criticisms-sex-offenders-shayla-wiggins-arlington-holocaust-graves/">causing deaths</a>. If you’re not playing <em>Pok&eacute;mon Go</em> right now, you’re talking about <em>Pok&eacute;mon Go</em>. It’s Pok&eacute;mania out there.</p>
<p>But what has been less viral since <em>Pok&eacute;mon Go</em>’s launch is precisely that: a lot more words like <a href="http://www.apple.com"><em>Pok&eacute;mania</em>.</a> This is surprising, given our cultural appetite for blending and insta-commentary. Only a month ago <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/29/why_has_brexit_sparked_an_explosion_of_wordplay.html">Brexit</a> blends choked social media like kudzu. Where’s the <em>pok&eacute;pocalypse</em> in <em>Pok&eacute;mongolia</em>? Why aren’t we all talking about <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> portmanteaus?</p>
<p>It’s not for lack of trying. Plenty have attempted <em>pok&eacute;manteaus</em>. At a D.C. bar, you can order a round of <a href="http://www.npr.org/2016/07/16/486311044/pok-mongaritas-and-more-businesses-try-to-cash-in-on-pok-mania">Pok&eacute;mongaritas</a>. Friends and family might stage a <a href="https://twitter.com/KBSpangler/status/400014996098134017">pokevention</a><em> </em>for an addict. <a href="https://twitter.com/samlistens/status/752272285562572800">Pok&eacute;mandering</a><em> </em>results in an unequal distribution of Pok&eacute;mon in neighborhoods. A <a href="https://twitter.com/DoTheGabe/status/753048881802403840">pok&eacute;montage</a><em> </em>shows off a player’s best captures. A <em>Pok&eacute;mon Go </em>pro studies at a <a href="http://www.apple.com">Pok&eacute;montessori school</a>. Players unimpressed with the game, meanwhile, are letting out <a href="https://twitter.com/Spudfish83/status/753183540557312000">pok&eacute;yawns</a>, saying it <a href="https://twitter.com/Llamakoolaid/status/752333743663091712">pok&eacute;sucks</a>. Citizens outraged by the ensuing public infestation lambaste the <a href="https://twitter.com/BudgieBudgieUK/status/754453601293111301">pok&eacute;morons</a>. Doomsayers are trumpeting society’s <a href="https://twitter.com/ReportUK/status/755226987610996736">pok&eacute;madness</a>. Gamers devastated by slow servers have even threatened a <a href="http://www.apple.com">pok&eacute;xit</a>. The rest of us are simply asking, “What the <a href="https://twitter.com/100ProofTravis/status/755141595696017408">pok&eacute;fuck</a><em> </em>is going on?”</p>
<p>All of these blends are funny, well-formed reactions to the <em>Pok&eacute;mon Go</em> phenomenon, er <em>pok&eacute;nomenon</em>. But they aren’t capturing our broader linguistic imaginations in the way, say, <em>regrexit </em>did. One immediate reason is familiarity. Many are still learning just what this foreign-feeling yet familiar-sounding word <em>Pok&eacute;mon </em>is, let alone what any of these <em>pok&eacute;</em>-blends are. As the name of the game, the creatures in it, and a whole media franchise, <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> is already working overtime. Dictionary.com recently added <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> to its <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pokemon?s=t">online dictionary</a>: Its entry is impressively concise for a word that requires explication more than definition.</p>
<p>Full blends of <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> are also hard to pull off—and overindulgent. As one tweeter provided in a wry <a href="https://twitter.com/maxleibman/status/752934184264556544">spree</a>: <em>Pok&eacute;monster</em>, <em>Pok&eacute;monographed</em>, <em>Pok&eacute;monsoon</em>, <em>Pok&eacute;monsplaining</em>, <em>Pok&eacute;monday Night Football</em>, and <em>The Count of Pok&eacute;monte Cristo</em>. These <em>pok&eacute;mongrels </em>are clever but absurd contortions of word formation. They read more like Jeopardy’s cumbersome “Before and After” answers than anything meaningful or usable. They are the splitting headache of the <em>Brexit</em> hangover, the inevitable consequence of blending to excess.</p>
<p>The internal linguistics of <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> also poses challenges to wordplay. The word <em>Pok&eacute;mon </em>cleanly<em> </em>snaps into <em>pok&eacute;</em>- and <em>-mon</em>. The latter part, <em>-mon</em>, can swap with many rhymes<em>;</em> <em>pok&eacute;yawn</em>,<em> </em>and more acrobatically, <em>pok&eacute;morons</em> are examples. But <em>-mon</em> doesn’t carry enough information on its own, thus limiting blend supply. A <em>zombiemon</em>, say, doesn’t evoke a hunchbacked, Matrixed-in Pok&eacute;mon trainer; it sounds like a crappy take on a Jamaican accent.</p>
<p>Then there’s the former component, <em>pok&eacute;-</em>. English speakers, experts in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy">polysemy</a>, are unlikely to confuse it with a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poke_(fish_salad)">fish salad</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumby%23Characters">Gumby’s sidekick</a>. But should we pronounce it with a long <em>E</em> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwa">schwa</a> <em>E</em>? Do we include the accent mark or not? The choices affect what other words <em>pok&eacute;</em>- sticks to. They also influence how we decode new combinations, especially in text: We approach <em>pokefuck</em> very differently than <em>pok&eacute;fuck</em>. And the very fact of choice might further deter wordplay in our fast-paced environments—or at least give us a moment’s pause, that rare filter of thinking before tweeting.</p>
<p>But it’s not just phonetic ambiguity that hamstrings <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> portmanteaus: It’s also unambiguity. <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> is an effective, successful, and distinctive brand name. Wordplay is in its DNA. <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> itself is a <a href="https://mashedradish.com/2016/07/12/if-youre-a-language-lover-you-should-be-obsessed-with-pokemon/">Japanese mashup</a> of <em>pocket monster</em>. Its creatures names are mashups, too; <em>Charmander</em> splices together <em>char</em> and <em>salamander</em>, for instance. Blends are part of the vocabulary of gameplay. Players flock to catch <em>Pok&eacute;Balls</em> in public <em>Pok&eacute;Stops.</em> Teams can compete at <em>Pok&eacute;Gyms</em>.</p>
<p>So, if <em>-mon</em> conveys too little information, <em>pok&eacute;</em>- conveys too specific of information. <em>Pok&eacute;-</em> is <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em>. It’s unmistakable, but it’s branded, which hinders the spread of <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> wordplay. We tend to recoil from corporate portmanteaus. <em>Framily</em> (<em>friends</em> and <em>family</em>)? <em>Frushi </em>(<em>fruit</em> and <em>sushi</em>)? <a href="https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&amp;q=%23portmantNO">#PortmantNO</a>, we revolt. These efforts reek of gimmicks, contrivance and pandering, of adding more din to our noisy lives, of passing off banality as originality. It’s also why Hillary Clinton’s own attempt at wordplay—“<a href="https://mic.com/articles/148785/hillary-clinton-s-pok-mon-go-joke-we-need-pok-mon-go-to-the-polls%23.fqh4JeK1F">Pok&eacute;mon Go to the polls</a>”—felt forced and hollow, if adorably clumsy in its Marge Simpson squareness.</p>
<p>In our media-saturated lives, we’ve trained our noses to sniff out sales pitches. Otherwise catchy <em>Pok&eacute;mon Go </em>portmanteaus—like a <em>pok&eacute;conomy</em>—still give off a stench, if faint, of capitalism. While many are still registering <em>Pok&eacute;mon </em>as a new word, many are also registering it as a registered trademark, conjuring up, like <em>Disney</em>, its specific stories and characters, its world, its brand.</p>
<p>The ultimate test for any neologism or usage, finally, is its utility. What gap in the language does it fill? <em>Brexit</em> and the <em>-exit </em><a href="https://arnoldzwicky.org/2010/01/23/libfixes/">libfix</a> gave needed expression a particular political phenomenon. Will the game radically transform how we use smartphones or think of public areas? If so, then we might talk of <em>Pok&eacute;moning </em>a space like we do <em>googling </em>information. A few interesting contenders along these lines are <a href="https://twitter.com/thekateyouknow/status/754435263087206400"><em>pok&eacute;bond</em></a>, <em>pok&eacute;pal</em>, and <em>pok&eacute;friend</em>, which some use to name a distinctively <em>Pok&eacute;mon Go</em>–related experience: a new relationship or positive social interaction that came about from playing <em>Pok&eacute;mon Go</em>.</p>
<p>For now, <em>Pok&eacute;mon </em>wordplay is in keeping with the game: It’s cute, curious, and charming but ultimately encapsulated. For now, blends like <em>pok&eacute;xit </em>are a welcome bit of frivolity and disposability in a reality that feels much in need of augmentation these days. For now, <em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> portmanteaus are—wait, you said there’s a Vaporeon <em>where</em>? Maybe we’re just too busy playing the game to play with its words.</p>Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/22/why_aren_t_there_more_pok_mon_portmanteaus_out_there.htmlJohn Kelly2016-07-22T13:30:00ZLife<em>Brexit</em> Blends Caught Fire. Why Haven’t
<em>Pok&eacute;mon</em> Portmanteaus?241160722001pokemonlanguageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/22/why_aren_t_there_more_pok_mon_portmanteaus_out_there.htmlfalsefalsefalseBrexit blends caught fire. Why haven't Pokémon portmanteaus?Maybe we’re just too busy playing the game to play with its words.Brendon Thorne/Getty Images<em>Pok&eacute;mon Go</em> seems primed for wordplay.What Conscience Means to a Conservativehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/what_conscience_means_to_a_conservative_from_lincoln_to_goldwater_to_cruz.html
<p>When Ted Cruz took the stage in Cleveland on Wednesday night, he shockingly offered an anti-endorsement of Donald Trump—and he used carefully calibrated language to do so. “Don’t stay home in November,” he implored the conventiongoers, promoting time-tested ideals of civic engagement and responsibility. “Stand and speak and vote your conscience.” That was it: no subsequent mention of the Republican Party’s official nominee, no rousing foretaste of the glorious changes Trump would enact in office. “Vote your conscience,” Cruz instructed, like a teacher urging students to adhere to the honor code while he stepped out of the room. The arena erupted in boos.</p>
<p>As my colleague Jim Newell <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/ted_cruz_s_speech_gave_anti_trumpers_what_they_wanted.html">noted</a>, Cruz’s phrasing subtweeted a lot of the “Never Trump” tumult that preceded his appearance. The senator’s supporters had attempted to slide a “conscience clause” into the party rule book that would unbind the delegates, relieving them of the obligation to vote Trump. The measure failed, and then a petition demanding a roll call vote on the rules <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/how_the_gop_rolled_the_anti_trump_movement.html">got snuffed</a>. In that context, “saying ‘vote your conscience’ wasn’t <em>just </em>a non-endorsement of Trump,” Newell concluded, “it was a big kiss blown to the anti-Trumpers, thanking them for their service in Cleveland.”</p>
<p>But <em>conscience</em> signified something to Republicans long before it joined the Cruz side of the Trump-Cruz tug-of-war. Since Barry Goldwater’s seminal 1960 book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1604598921/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Conscience of a Conservative</em></a>, the word has suggested a uniquely right-wing brand of protest, a principled and individualistic challenge to the status quo. <em>Conscience </em>is how Republicans defy the government—it’s their take on civil disobedience or conscientious objection (two concepts historically aligned with the left). And it has blended in fascinating ways with the GOP’s Christianity, positing the idea that in each citizen thrums a kind of spiritual core that must remain unsullied by politics.</p>
<p>In <em>Conscience of a Conservative</em>, Goldwater writes that “the first principle of totalitarianism” is “that the State is competent to do all things and is limited in what it actually does only by the will of those who control the State.” (What would he make of Trump’s authoritarianism?) Meanwhile, the ideal government gets out of the way so that its citizens can follow their own lights. Goldwater felt that a person needed to lead a sacred portion of his life beyond the scope of the state, in an autonomous, pristine space devoted to the cultivation of conscience: “Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man’s <em>spiritual nature</em> as the primary concern of political philosophy” (itals mine).</p>
<p>So when conservative politicians invoke “conscience,” that prize jewel of the individual psyche, they are often staking out a moral objection to something the “majority”—and especially the political majority—seems to support. For instance, John McCain broke ranks with much of his party when he condemned the practice of waterboarding in a 2014 speech on the Senate floor. Terrorists “act without conscience,” he <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/12/09/terrorists-act-without-conscience-we-must-not-mccain-condemns-torture-powerful-address">said</a>, “but we must not.”</p>
<p>Or consider Mitt Romney declaring last month that his “conscience” wouldn’t permit him to cast a ballot for either Clinton or Trump. “It’s a matter of personal conscience. I can’t vote for either of those two people,” he <a>admitted</a> to John Dickerson in an interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival.</p>
<p>Or think of the <a href="http://www.speaker.gov/general/conscience-protection-act-what-it-and-why-it-s-needed">Conscience Protection Act</a>, a bill proposed by the Republican congresswoman Diane Black and lifted to prominence by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. The measure hits back at <em>Roe v. Wade</em>, offering cover to health care providers that refuse to perform abortions as “a matter of conscience.”</p>
<p>In all these cases, <em>conscience </em>is what one might call the personal—especially the spiritualized personal—when it clashes with the political. Even the alternative interpretations of Cruz’s non-endorsement are rooted in the senator’s individual psychology—they are intimate character judgments, not suppositions about his policy aims. “I think it was something selfish,” <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/ted-cruz-republican-convention-moment/">said</a> Chris Christie after the speech. Meanwhile, radio host Laura Ingraham <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ingraham-at-rnc-all-you-boys-with-wounded-feelings-and-bruised-egos-get-behind-trump/">attributed</a> the never-Trump crowd’s moral distaste for the nominee to “wounded feelings and bruised egos.”</p>
<p>But conscience as a political force is about more than that, and its early historical displays have an almost preternatural resonance with Cruz’s convention address. In 1844, troubled by the rise of the nativist, hate-fueled “Know Nothing” party, Abraham Lincoln convened a gathering of fellow Whigs. “He did not believe the political ostracism of foreign-born voters was Christian,” writes John Wesley Hill in his 1920 book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1113598751/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>Abraham Lincoln, Man of God</em></a><em>. </em>And so, with a xenophobic movement threatening “to sweep the country and place Proscriptionists in power,” Lincoln introduced a resolution defending his homeland against “intolerance and disorder.” “RESOLVED,” it read, “that the guarantee of the <em>rights of conscience</em>, as found in our Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable … and that all attempts to abridge or interfere with these rights … directly or indirectly, have our decided disapprobation.”</p>Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:15:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/what_conscience_means_to_a_conservative_from_lincoln_to_goldwater_to_cruz.htmlKaty Waldman2016-07-21T20:15:00ZLifeWhat
<em>Conscience</em> Means to a Conservative241160721003language2016 campaignKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/what_conscience_means_to_a_conservative_from_lincoln_to_goldwater_to_cruz.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat "conscience" means to a conservative:The word suggests a uniquely right-wing brand of protest, a principled and individualistic challenge to the status quo.Alex Wong/Getty ImagesTed Cruz pointedly does not endorse Donald Trump on Day 3 of the RNC in Cleveland.Where the “Spicy Boi” Meme Came From (and Why It’s Spamming Hillary Clinton’s Instagram)http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/_spicy_boi_meme_floods_hillary_clinton_s_instagram_tapping_into_the_anarchy.html
<p>Visitors to Hillary Clinton’s Instagram account over the past couple of days have been treated to yet another instance of the internet run amok. Comments reading “spicy boi” (and all possible variations in spelling and capitalization) had been posted <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BIBrXAsBCL3/?taken-by=hillaryclinton">tens of thousands of times</a> under the pictures on Clinton’s account, with some users digging back in the archives to comment on pictures that were more than a year old.</p>
<p>If you’re confused, you’re not alone. <a href="https://twitter.com/GoogleTrends/status/755065707793096707?lang=en">Google Trends tweeted</a> that “What is Spicy Boi Hillary Clinton” was the top Hillary-related query for the search engine on Monday. Several in-the-know publications (i.e. media outlets with a steady supply of millennial interns) felt compelled to run pieces explaining the meaning behind the “spicy boi” meme, and to settle any remaining concerns that <a href="http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-spicy-boy-clinton-rip-20160720-snap-story.html">Hillary Clinton might be dead</a>. <em>New York </em>magazine<em> </em>correctly <a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/07/why-trump-supporters-are-bombing-hillary-clintons-instagram-with-spicy-boi.html">reported in its piece</a> that the meme originated with <a href="https://www.change.org/p/rename-fire-ants-to-spicy-boys">a petition</a>, addressed to Michelle and Barack Obama (and, inexplicably, Mark Zuckerberg), asking that fire ants please be renamed “spicey boys.” That piece goes on to state that it was <a href="http://img.ifcdn.com/images/14d8b272f31ccaf81495baaaa4a35d734c608362b0ae8fa9112e6591474a12be_1.jpg">this image</a>, posted to iFunny.co, that spawned the idea to bombard Clinton’s Instagram with the term.*</p>
<p>At this point, my fellow meme-loving millennials are raising their eyebrows in skepticism, since memes originate on sites like iFunny and 9GAG about as often as they originate on Facebook (i.e. never). More likely, our suspicions tell us, it’s 4chan, right? What did they do this time? Indeed, friends, it was.</p>
<p>4chan is a site that baby boomer journalists often refer to with eye-glazing terms like “anonymous message board,” and is the home to the hacker collective Anonymous. Compared with the site’s previous exploits, posting “spicy boi” on the pictures of a presidential candidate is relatively innocuous. In 2014, users of the site <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2768976/Emergency-services-forced-step-iPhone-users-fall-internet-prank-explains-use-microwave-charge-phone.html">concocted a hoax</a> to convince owners of the iPhone 6 that the device could be charged in any standard microwave. Later that same year, when Mountain Dew held an open online naming contest for their new soft drink, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/4chan-mountain-dew_n_1773076.html">4chan struck again</a>, voting names like “Diabeetus” and “Moist Nugget” straight to the top. The contest’s site was quickly taken down.</p>
<p>While many of us think of “memes” as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_macro">an image with a joke written over it (invariably in the Impact font)</a>, this is actually what’s called an image macro, which only becomes a meme once it reaches a certain level of notoriety within a community. Memes as such are “an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture,” kind of like an inside joke.</p>
<p>But words and behaviors mean something. The fact that one idea spreads in a community while another doesn’t indicates something about that community. So what’s important about the “spicy boi” meme on Clinton’s Instagram, beyond the humor that, depending on one’s age, may or may not be apparent?</p>
<p>The <em>New York </em>magazine piece concluded, incorrectly I think, that the meme doesn’t actually transcend humor. “It’s just for kicks,” one iFunny user told them. But there is an undeniable political undercurrent to it all. The Twitter handle @OldRowOfficial, an account followed by the unwaveringly conservative demographic of Southern frat boy, was responsible for signal boosting the raid. So was the <a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/04/how-breitbart-is-milking-the-milo-yiannopoulos-campus-outrage-outrage-cycle.html">recently banned</a> conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos. Many comments followed “spicy boy” with references to the email scandal or the Black Lives Matter movement.</p>
<p>It’s an oversimplification to say this meme caught on because it was spread by people who like Donald Trump and dislike Hillary Clinton, or that it was any kind of concerted attempt to help him win the presidency. Rather, what memes like this convey, when a hive of internet users rise up to humiliate or confuse a corporation or public figure, is a deep sense that the current systems are not working (ironically, most of the members of these raids are white educated American men, a group for whom the current systems are actually working quite well). These raids point to the power of the same forces that have allowed Donald Trump to get as far as he has in this election: rebellion against the establishment, a desire to shake up the status quo.</p>
<p>Memes like this tap into those forces, and into the earliest, most anarchic days of the internet, when lawlessness and anonymity were among the culture’s most important virtues. These memes are a reminder, an assertion of independence. An act of protest. An attempt to declare, in coded, meme-based language, “How can you control us? You can’t even understand us.”</p>
<p><em><strong>*Correction, July 25, 2016</strong>: This post originally misidentified the website iFunny.co as&nbsp;iFunny.com </em></p>Thu, 21 Jul 2016 19:38:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/_spicy_boi_meme_floods_hillary_clinton_s_instagram_tapping_into_the_anarchy.htmlMatt Miller2016-07-21T19:38:00ZLifeWhere the “Spicy Boi” Meme Came From (and Why It’s Spamming Hillary Clinton’s Instagram)241160721002Matt MillerLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/_spicy_boi_meme_floods_hillary_clinton_s_instagram_tapping_into_the_anarchy.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhere the “Spicy Boi” meme came from (and why it’s all over Clinton’s Instagram):Memes like these proliferate in the cultures that embrace themJustin Sullivan/Getty ImagesWhy is Hillary Clinton's Instagram getting spammed with a meme?How “Show Me the Receipts” Became a Catchphrase for Holding the Powerful Accountablehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/how_show_me_the_receipts_became_a_catchphrase_for_holding_the_powerful_accountable.html
<p>There are two types of receipt: The receipt you have and the receipt you don’t. They complement each other—supply and demand, triumph and challenge, “I’m here with the receipts” and “Really? Show me the receipts<em>.</em>”</p>
<p>We aren’t talking about translucent little slips of paper itemizing expenditures. We are talking about proof, evidence, confirmation. Receipts equal the contraband found under the mattress, the DNA on the trigger, the absolute final word.</p>
<p>When <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/07/18/kim_kardashian_s_taylor_swift_kanye_west_snapchat_campaign_is_skillful_gender.html">Kim Kardashian leaked Snapchat footage of Taylor Swift</a> apparently approving some lines in a Kanye West song she would later criticize, the internet threw a party. “Looks like she’s got receipts,” <a href="http://www.gq.com/story/kardashian-taylor-swift-kanye-famous-video-exposed">crowed</a> <em>GQ</em>, referring to Kardashian, who released the video to defend her husband after Swift publicly took him to task. (Problem couplet, which, sure, partakes of the problematic: “I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex/ I made that bitch famous.”) When the track dropped in 2016, Taylor acted mad and even negged Kanye while accepting her Album of the Year Grammy—a feminist “victory” rusted over with the implication that, huzzah, a dewy white woman had overcome a hostile black man to net a prize that rightfully belonged to another black man, Kendrick Lamar.</p>
<p>ANYWAY. Kim Kardashian torched Swift’s I’m-disappointed-in-you-Kanye charade this week, posting a Snapchat story that captured the pop star assuring the rapper, re his lyric: “I really appreciate you telling me about it, that’s really nice.” “Kardashian,” <a href="http://verysmartbrothas.com/how-taylor-swift-is-the-most-dangerous-type-of-white-woman-explained/">mused</a> the brilliant Damon Young over at <em>Very Smart Brothas</em>, “is actually Swahili for ‘white woman with receipts.’ ”</p>
<p>How to account for the cathartic satisfaction of receipts? Maybe it has to do with the fact that the receipt first manifested in pop culture as an absence—as something yearned for but out of reach. As Alex Abad-Santos <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/7/18/12210858/kim-kardashian-taylor-swift-snapchat-kanye-west">tells us</a> at <em>Vox</em>, Whitney Houston <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmofKdmQSeo">introduced the concept of the receipt</a> during a fantastically woozy 2002 interview with Diane Sawyer. Asked to comment on an alleged $730,000 drug habit, Houston tilted her head to the left and cocked her thumb and pointer finger. “I wanna see the receipts,” she said smoothly. “I wanna see the receipts.”</p>
<p>It was a subversive taunt, the equivalent of O.J. Simpson penning a “fictionalized” tell-all with the title <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0825305934/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>If I Did It</em></a>. Houston called up the specter of the missing receipts to poke fun at Sawyer’s impotence. She wasn’t so much clearing her name as luxuriating in immunity.</p>
<p>But asking for receipts can also express sincere distrust, especially of authorities that might assume they’ll receive the benefit of the doubt.</p>
<p>Interestingly, receipts circa now are just as likely to be present as absent. It’s not only <em>let’s see some receipts</em>; it’s <em>and I’ve got the receipts right here</em>. The year 2016 is flush with documentation, stupid with hard evidence. <a href="http://celebreceipts.tumblr.com/">Tumblrs</a> like <a href="http://yourfaveisproblematic.tumblr.com/">Problematic Fave</a> are devoted to curating “celeb receipts”—social media posts that prove a famous person’s <a href="http://yourfaveisproblematic.tumblr.com/post/92893374586/azealia-banks">wrongdoing</a>. (Recent revelations from the page: “Richard O’Brien says trans people can’t become women.” “Rapper B.O.B. promotes Holocaust denial.”) The receipt boom registers a shift in our society: Where the powerful once exercised their power with relative impunity, now we might be seeing glimmers of accountability.</p>
<p>At least, that’s the spirit in which <em>receipts </em>got started on the internet. Post-Houston, the concept appears to have germinated on LiveJournal—particularly a blog devoted to celebrity shenanigans called <a href="http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/">Oh No They Didn’t</a>—and moved to Tumblr, where “receipts” referred to screen caps of abusive or offensive comments. Mainstream Hollywood coverage jumped on the bandwagon. In 2013, Page Six <a href="http://jezebel.com/hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-page-six-reporter-scorned-1783663336">reported</a> that comedian Julie Klausner had spiced up a promotional appearance for <em>Difficult People </em>by declaring Gwyneth Paltrow “one of the phoniest backstabbers in Tinseltown.” Klausner refuted the charge on Twitter, writing she had “no idea why Page Six decided to report on an alleged beef I have with Gwyneth Paltrow, whom I have never met.” Journalist Oli Coleman then released the audio in which Klausner clearly dissed the Goop founder. The <a href="http://jezebel.com/hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-page-six-reporter-scorned-1783663336">refrain</a> of the ensuing media tempest-in-a-teacup: Coleman “provides the receipts.”</p>
<p>Now that <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/meredith_mciver_takes_responsibility_for_melania_trump_speech_disaster.html">Melania Trump seems to have cribbed lines</a> from Michelle Obama’s 2008 Democratic National Convention speech, we’re again seeing a snowfall of receipts, in the form of video, audio, and transcript comparisons of the two addresses.</p>
<p>As with Swift and West, here receipts are being procured to make sure a white person doesn’t get away with the kind of nonsense she might have been able to subject a person of color to in the past.</p>
<p>Likewise, in asking to see the receipts, Whitney Houston did something more profound than mock Sawyer’s inability to pin her down. She appealed to a higher authority than a white woman’s suspicions. Much of contemporary race relations is slippery, unspoken, or unconscious, with &nbsp;bias often wrapped in plausible deniability. But no one can argue with a piece of paper.</p>
<p>And that’s why this bit of slang—which like most U.S. slang has flourished especially in black vernaculars—packs an undeniable punch. Those who deal with a lot of nebulous discrimination have found power in the impartiality of screenshots and audio clips. Without calling them “receipts,” impromptu videographers have been brandishing the evidence, from the bystanders who recorded two police officers pinning <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/06/484909862/video-of-baton-rouge-mans-fatal-encounter-with-police-sparks-protests">Alton Sterling</a> to the ground and shooting him to <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/07/485066807/police-stop-ends-in-black-mans-death-aftermath-is-livestreamed-online-video">Diamond Reynolds</a>, the girlfriend of the Minnesota man who was executed during a traffic stop. In his “I Have a Dream Speech”—excerpted by Beyonc&eacute; in a <a href="http://www.bustle.com/articles/169188-what-quote-played-during-beyonces-2016-bet-awards-performance-its-the-most-famous-speech-of-all">stunning performance</a> that opened the 2016 BET Awards—Martin Luther King Jr. described “a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”</p>
<blockquote>
This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt … So we have come to cash this check—a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.”
</blockquote>
<p>Perhaps the soaring idealism of his address didn’t permit King to say it outright, but his check-cashers at the bank of justice would be foolish not to ask for a receipt.</p>Thu, 21 Jul 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/how_show_me_the_receipts_became_a_catchphrase_for_holding_the_powerful_accountable.htmlKaty Waldman2016-07-21T13:30:00ZLifeHow “Show Me the Receipts” Became a Catchphrase for Holding the Powerful Accountable241160721001languageKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/21/how_show_me_the_receipts_became_a_catchphrase_for_holding_the_powerful_accountable.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow "show me the receipts" became a catchphrase for holding the powerful accountable:Much of contemporary race relations is slippery, unspoken, or unconscious, with bias often wrapped in plausible deniability. But no one can argue with a piece of paper.Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty ImagesKimye. &nbsp;Where Does “Your Word Is Your Bond” Come From, and Why Did Melania Steal It?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/19/your_word_is_your_bond_history_and_origins_from_matthew_to_hip_hop.html
<p>When Melania Trump <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/07/18/melania_trump_gave_a_speech_at_the_republican_national_convention.html">graced the podium</a> in Cleveland on Monday night, she delivered lines that sounded <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/19/melania_trump_plagiarizes_michelle_obama_s_2008_speech.html">eerily reminiscent</a> of Michelle Obama’s address eight years before. Among those lines: “From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life. That your word is your bond. And you do what you say and keep your promise.”</p>
<p>And here’s Obama in 2008: “And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond, that you do what you say you’re going to do.”</p>
<p>The phrase <em>“</em>your word is your bond” has roots in black America, with a rich <a href="https://www.thewordisbond.com/">hip-hop</a> history. The internet <a href="https://twitter.com/jelani9/status/755332250531663872">consensus</a> seems to be that Trump’s use of the slogan is an obvious “tell”—a clueless bit of parroting from a Slovenian immigrant who would never organically find her way to those words.</p>
<p>Of course, word-bond equivalence—the idea of it, if not the precise phrasing deployed by Trump and Obama—reaches back centuries. The books of Matthew and Numbers both contain passages in which one’s spoken vow becomes a sacred commitment. In Numbers, the Hebrew elder Moshe instructs the tribes of Israel: “When a man … swears an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.” Chaucer, too, punned on the idea of “trouthe”—to “pledge one’s trouthe” meant both to enter into an indissoluble contract and to affirm the semantic “truth” of the words manifesting that contract. The Bishop of Exeter, Joseph Hall, wrote in 1608 of “the honest man”: “His word is his parchment.”</p>
<p>According to Rachael Ferguson, an ethnographer and lecturer at Princeton University, the principle “word is bond” allowed merchant traders in the late 1500s to make agreements legally binding before the advent of written pledges. When the London Stock Exchange needed a motto in 1801, it harkened back to that foundational promise of integrity with a Latin expression: <em>dictum meum pactum.</em></p>
<p>By the 19<sup>th</sup> century,&nbsp;your word is your bond” had ascended into the realms of moralistic clich&eacute;. In an 1842 “admonitory epistle from a governess to her late pupils,” for instance, the upstanding educator drills her charges: “Let it be said of you, ‘Your word is your bond.’ ”</p>
<p>But to utter this phrase in the 2016 United States is to invoke an entirely different history. As Geneva Smitherman recounts in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0395969190/?tag=slatmaga-20">Black Talk: Words and Phrases from the Hood to the Amen Corner</a></em>, y<em>o word is yo bond</em> represents a “resurfacing of an old familiar saying in the Black Oral Tradition.” It was popularized some time after 1964 by the Five Percent Nation, an Islamic group that stressed authenticity and self-knowledge alongside social progressivism. (The affirmation <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_gUeeDgKW8"><em>Word is born</em></a>—a response kind of like <em>Amen</em> that indicates enthusiastic buy-in; also a Run DMC song—is thought to be a “result of the AAE pronunciation of ‘bond,’ ” writes Smitherman.)</p>
<p>The Five Percenters left a deep imprint on hip-hop—and the blogger Patrick has a <a href="https://www.thewordisbond.com/food-4-thought-word-is-bond/">great, thorough rundown</a> of the cross-pollination between them and rappers like Busta Rhymes and Q-Tip. Jamaican-born rap pioneer Kool Herc <a href="https://www.thewordisbond.com/food-4-thought-word-is-bond/">enlisted members of FPN in his security team</a>. Emcee Rakim, of the golden age duo Eric B. and Rakim, released a <a href="http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/ericbrakim/ther.html">song</a> with the lyrics: “Turn up the bass and let the system thump / A block party starts to form, people start to swarm / Loud as a ghetto blaster, word is bond.” The phrase soon wended its way toward shibboleth status in the rhymes of artists from <a href="http://genius.com/Big-daddy-kane-smooth-operator-lyrics">Big Daddy Kane</a> (“And I’m lovin’ em right, word is bond”) to <a href="http://genius.com/Ll-cool-j-papa-luv-it-lyrics">LL Cool J</a> (“I do it for you, word is bond.”) As Patrick explains, peak <em>word is bond</em> arrived with the Wu-Tang Clan. The group consciously and deliberately threaded messages from the Five Percent Nation—and the partially overlapping Zulu Nation—into their work. In “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnOZea4Zgbc">Wu-Tang Clan Ain’t Nuthing Ta F’ Wit</a>,” for example, RZA sums it up: “Peace to the fuckin Zulu Nation / Peace to all the Gods and the Earths, word is bond.”</p>
<p>So when Michelle Obama told convention-goers that her word was her bond, she was both retrieving a powerful saw from the ethical canon and, perhaps, signifying to black listeners. When Melania Trump stole her language, she signified too: that she was clueless, sure, but in the signature American way of a white woman who takes from a black woman without any real sense of what she’s talking about.</p>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 17:08:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/19/your_word_is_your_bond_history_and_origins_from_matthew_to_hip_hop.htmlKaty Waldman2016-07-19T17:08:00ZLifeWhere Does “Your Word Is Your Bond” Come From, and Why Did Melania Steal It?241160719002languagemelania trump2016 campaigngop primary 2016Katy WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/19/your_word_is_your_bond_history_and_origins_from_matthew_to_hip_hop.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhere does "your word is your bond" come from, and why did Melania steal it?The phrase “your word is your bond” has roots in black America, with a rich hip hop history. The Internet consensus seems to be that Trump’s use of the slogan is an obvious “tell”—a clueless bit of parroting from a Slovenian immigrant who would never organically find her way to those words.1519028539001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_2pKN0AJTySft1Irx-gT62t504120142800145532334560011519028539001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_2pKN0AJTySft1Irx-gT62t504120142800145532334560011519028539001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_2pKN0AJTySft1Irx-gT62t504120142800145532334560011519028539001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_2pKN0AJTySft1Irx-gT62t504120142800145532334560011519028539001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_2pKN0AJTySft1Irx-gT62t504120142800145532334560011519028539001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_2pKN0AJTySft1Irx-gT62t504120142800145532334560011519028539001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_2pKN0AJTySft1Irx-gT62t50412014280014553233456001Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty ImagesTheir bond, their words. Donald and Melania Trump at the Republican National Convention on Monday in Cleveland.Feeling Like a Misanthrope? Here’s Shakespeare’s Guide&nbsp;to Swearing Like One.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/19/shakespeare_timon_of_athens_swear_like_a_misanthrope.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/07/10/more-man-plague-plague-how-to-swear-like-a-misanthrope/">post</a>&nbsp;originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>Shakespeare’s <em>The Life of Timon of Athens</em>&nbsp;is an overlooked gem in his corpus. Though less accomplished than many of his other tragedies, this moral drama is distinctive—and timely—in its focus on the relationship between money and affection. It satirizes some amusing characters, including a churlish cynic philosopher and&nbsp;two artists who only ply their craft to win rewards. The play also features some choice language.</p>
<p>In <em>Timon of Athens</em>, our titular protagonist buys&nbsp;the love of his countrymen with generous gifts, but his largesse is loaned. When his creditors come asking for payment, a bankrupt Timon finds that none of his “friends” will bail him out. Banished by Athens, a disillusioned Timon rejects the human world and becomes a hermitic misanthrope. He dies soon after in a cave.</p>
<p>But Timon doesn’t go gently—or quietly—into that good night. He gives everyone a piece of his bitter mind before he goes, including the Lords he once regaled. They try to buddy up to him after rattling off excuses for why they couldn’t help him. In a punchy turn of phrase, he derides them as a “mouth-friends,” loyal in word alone (3.7.81). “Live loathed and long,” Timon rails,</p>
<blockquote>
Most smiling and smooth, detested parasites,
<br /> Courteous destroyers, affable wolves, meek bears,
<br /> You fools of fortune, trencher-friends, times’ flies,
<br /> Cap-and-knee slaves, vapours, and minute-jacks!
<br /> Of man and beast the infinite malady
<br /> Crust you quite o’er. (3.7.85-91)
</blockquote>
<p>Shakespeare conveys disingenuousness in a string of sharp and condensed images, like the “meek bear,” gentle in appearance but ferocious by nature. He also conveys it with some now-historical insults. A “trencher-friend” lasted only over mealtime. “Times’ flies” died off come the cold. “Cap-and-knee slaves” obsequiously doffed their caps and took knees to greet their masters. “Minute-jacks,” as the <em>Norton Shakespeare</em>&nbsp;explains, were figures that struck the bells on medieval clocks, thus “timeservers.”</p>
<p>In the next scene, Timon broadens the target of his ire in quite the spleen-splitting soliloquy. He commands the young: “Son of sixteen, / Pluck the lined crutch from thy limping sire; With it beat out his brains!” (4.1.13-15). He attacks the old: “Thou cold sciatica, / Cripple our senators, that their limbs may halt / As lamely as their manners!” (4.1.23-25). He curses all of Athens: “Itches, blains, / Sow all th’ Athenians bosoms, and their crop / Be general leprosy” (4.1.28-30).</p>
<p>The&nbsp;infectious imprecations take a sexual turn when Timon&nbsp;condemns two prostitutes, further figures of purchased affection who “will do anything for gold” (4.3.149). “Hold up, you sluts, / Your aprons mountant,” or skirts lifted, he&nbsp;sounds off (4.3.134-35). He actually then throws gold into those&nbsp;skirts.</p>
<p>The&nbsp;usage of <em>slut</em>&nbsp;stands out here. It’s a surprisingly old term. The <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>&nbsp;first cites this word of obscure origin in 1402, when it referred to a slovenly women. Its sense of “promiscuous” emerges as late as the 1960s.</p>
<p>Timon also inveighs against the prostitutes’ appearances:</p>
<blockquote>
…Yet may your pain-sick months
<br /> Be quite contrary, and thatch your poor thin roofs
<br /> With the burdens of the dead – some that were hanged,
<br /> No matter. Wear them, betray with them; whore still;
<br /> Paint till a horse may mire upon your face.
<br /> A pox of wrinkles! (4.3.143-48)
</blockquote>
<p>“Thatch your poor thin roofs / With the burdens of the dead,” as the <em>Norton Shakespeare</em>helpfully glosses, means “wear wigs made of corpses’ hair to cover your syphilitic baldness.” And “paint till a horse may mire upon your face” alludes to the amount of makeup he derides them for wearing.</p>
<p>But for Timon, it’s not enough for the prostitutes to fall ill to venereal disease: He wills it on their customers. Shakespeare is very descriptive about what effects syphilis will have: “hollow bones” (bone degeneration), “crack the lawyer’s voice” (ulcerous larynx), “down with the nose” (a collapsed nasal bridge), and genital sores:&nbsp; “Plague all, / That your activity may defeat and quell / The source of all erection” (4.3.161-63).</p>
<p>Timon meets his sweary match, though, when he reencounters Apemantus, whose message of man’s untrustworthiness had long been dogging him. &nbsp;Timon often calls the philosopher a dog (e.g.,&nbsp;“beggar’s dog,” “mangy dog”). <em>Dog</em>&nbsp;is indeed a widespread term of abuse in&nbsp;Shakespeare, but it has additional meaning in this play, as <em>cynic</em>&nbsp;derives from the Greek word for “dog.” The two exchange a withering repartee. Timon issues a few disses that might land in the dozens today, like “If thou wert the ass, thy dullness would torment thee” (4.3.328) and “I’d beat thee, but I should infect my hands” (4.3.356).</p>
<p>Yet Timon remains as egocentric in his misanthropy as he was in his&nbsp; profligate, flattery-seeking munificence. He fails to identify even with the cynical Apemantus and regresses into a comical, child-like petulance:</p>
<blockquote>
TIMON Away, thou tedious rogue!
<br /> [
<em>He throws a stone at</em>&nbsp;APEMANTUS]
<br /> I am sorry I shall lose a stone by thee.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
APEMANTUS Beast!
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
TIMON Slave!
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
APEMANTUS Toad!
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
TIMON Rogue, rogue, rogue!
<br /> I am sick of this false world…(4.3.361-68)
</blockquote>
<p>So sick, Timon is, that he dies of it shortly thereafter in his cave. But he still manages to give humanity&nbsp;one last&nbsp;finger in his final, sweary act: his epitaph. It reads:</p>
<blockquote>
Here lies a wretched corpse,
<br /> Of wretched soul bereft.
<br /> Seek not my name. A plague consume
<br /> You wicked caitiffs left!
<br /> Here lie I, Timon, who alive
<br /> All living men did hate.
<br /> Pass by and curse thy fill, but pass
<br /> And stay not here thy gait. (5.5.71-78)
</blockquote>
<p>“Curse thy fill” indeed. Timon’s misanthropy is obtuse, stubborn, self-pitying, and somewhat&nbsp;tiresome, and the play itself is a tad&nbsp;moralistic. But at least Timon is consistent—and, delighting lovers of Shakespeare and strong language alike, has a consistently, impressively, foul mouth.</p>
<p><em><strong>See also:</strong> <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/07/14/donald-trump-swears-a-lot/">Donald Trump Swears a Lot</a></em></p>Tue, 19 Jul 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/19/shakespeare_timon_of_athens_swear_like_a_misanthrope.htmlJohn Kelly2016-07-19T13:30:00ZLifeShakespeare’s Guide&nbsp;to Swearing Like a Misanthrope241160719001shakespeareswearingstrong languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/19/shakespeare_timon_of_athens_swear_like_a_misanthrope.htmlfalsefalsefalse“A pox of wrinkles!”“A pox of wrinkles!”Tristan Fewings/Getty ImagesA toast to misanthropy!How Did “All Lives Matter” Come to Oppose “Black Lives Matter”? A Philosopher of Language Weighs In.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/18/all_lives_matter_versus_black_lives_matter_how_does_the_philosophy_of_language.html
<p>You don’t doubt that we live in strange times. But if you did, I would direct your attention to the debate currently raging across the United States between the proponents of two three-word slogans—both of which are, in a sense, obviously true and each of which is obviously compatible with the other. (Indeed, one is a logical consequence of the other.) I’m talking, of course, about “Black Lives Matter” and “All Lives Matter.”</p>
<p>How did we get here? I don’t mean: <a href="http://blacklivesmatter.com/herstory/">How did Black Lives Matter start?</a> I mean: How did these two phrases come to express disagreement with one another? Some prominent philosophers and social theorists—<a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/whats-wrong-with-all-lives-matter/">Judith Butler</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/kierradturner/videos/1170014229678933/">Jason Stanley</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/opinion/race-truth-and-our-two-realities.html?_r=0">Chris Lebron</a>, <a href="http://www.thefunkyacademic.com/?p=179">The Funky Academic</a>—have addressed the question. I agree with much of what they’ve said, but I’d like to add my two cents. I think the philosophy of language can help us understand what’s going on, and what I’ve found in some of my research on moral slogans might shed a unique kind of light on the issue.</p>
<p>One obstacle to diagnosing the disagreement is semantic; it’s rooted in what “matter” means. Saying that something matters is ambiguous between, roughly, a claim about what we <em>ought</em> to care about and a claim about what we actually <em>do</em> care about. It won’t hurt to have labels for these meanings; we can call the first claim normative and the second claim descriptive. There’s a similar ambiguity in claims about rights. In a sense, most people think slaves in the American colonies had a right not to be owned. This is a normative claim about what ought to be the case; it’s one explanation of why slavery was wrong. But in another sense, we might say that slaves had no such right. Of course, that’s the problem: Blacks and Native Americans didn’t have the same rights as whites. This is a descriptive claim about the history of slavery; it’s true just because whites owned large numbers of black and Native American slaves. Similarly, supporters of BLM are making a normative claim to the effect that, roughly, we ought to care (more) about black lives. But they’re making that claim <em>because</em> they believe the corresponding descriptive claim is false—people don’t actually care, or care enough, about black lives. They’re making the normative claim to effect change in the descriptive reality.</p>
<p>The slogans conceal one central point of descriptive disagreement. Many proponents of All Lives Matter, I think, believe both the (uncontroversial) normative claim <em>and </em>the descriptive claim that all lives matter. They think that we do, in general, care enough about black lives. (<a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/27/key-takeaways-race-and-inequality/">A recent Pew poll</a> found that whites are significantly less likely than blacks to support BLM and significantly less likely to think that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in a number of different domains. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/17/white-americans-long-for-the-1950s-when-they-werent-such-victims-of-reverse-discrimination/">A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute</a> found, incredibly, that 53 percent of Americans think discrimination against whites is as significant a problem today as discrimination against blacks and Latinos.) Ironically, the disagreement is that proponents of BLM think that, in the descriptive sense, black lives <em>don’t </em>matter.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t explain how the slogans are used to express disagreement. Part of the explanation is pragmatic—it’s rooted in how we use language in interaction. Last week, Rudy Giuliani declared that the claim that black lives matter is “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter.html">inherently racist</a>.” If he’s being sincere at all, he’s thinking of the claim as involving what linguists and philosophers of language call a quantity implicature. If a friend and I are trying to figure out how much cash we have on us, and I say that I have $10, my friend will assume that that’s <em>all </em>I have. I’m not saying outright that I have no more than $10, though; I’m implicating or suggesting it. The philosopher Paul Grice explained this in terms of a very general truth about the nature of conversation. In cooperative conversations, we give as much information as is required by the goals of the conversation. If the goal is to figure out how much money we have, and I have more than $10, it would be uncooperative to withhold information about that additional money. Assuming I’m being cooperative, then, if I say I have $10, I must mean that I have no more than $10. So, Giuliani might think, if I believed that non-black lives matter, I wouldn’t just say that black lives matter.</p>
<p>But if that’s what Giuliani thinks, he’s wrong. If the goal of our national political conversation were just to ask everyone to list exhaustively all of the things that they think matter, then saying “Black Lives Matter” would implicate that only black lives matter. But of course that’s not the goal of our national conversation. In particular, at least one important goal of that conversation is to point out social problems that don’t receive enough attention. The claim that “Black Lives Matter” does just that, and it does it without denying the existence of other social problems. It is a way of pointing out that black Americans are especially likely to be brutalized by the police and criminal justice system—and underserved by our schools, barred from voting, and gerrymandered into political irrelevance. (Perhaps the claim that “All Lives Matter” <em>could</em> be used to call attention to ways in which all Americans are affected, to a lesser extent, by some of these problems. But it isn’t.)</p>
<p>Now, that explains the <em>appearance</em> of disagreement between the two slogans. The disagreement isn’t merely apparent, though. Part of the genuine disagreement lies in the nature of slogans themselves. Consider how moral slogans differ pragmatically from nonslogans that mean roughly the same thing. How does a typical use of a moral slogan like “Meat is murder” differ from a use of “It’s morally wrong to eat meat”? I think in at least two (related) ways. First: The former, but not the latter, is an explicit expression of group solidarity. When I say “Meat is murder,” I align myself with a certain social movement—the international vegetarian cause. Second: The former, but not the latter, invokes the moral authority of that group. It’s a bit like the difference between saying “Rich people are the worst” and saying “Eat the rich” or “Blessed are the meek”. “Rich people are the worst” doesn’t, by itself, suggest how that claim is supposed to be justified or who you can pass the buck to if challenged. “Eat the rich” and “Blessed are the meek” do. So someone uttering “Black Lives Matter” disagrees with someone uttering “All Lives Matter” in at least these two ways—in terms of which groups they align with and in terms of which moral authorities they appeal to. This disagreement, unlike the one Giuliani has dreamt up, is very real. It will take more than a little philosophy of language to clear it up.</p>
<p>I remember there were people carrying “All Lives Matter” signs at the first BLM action I went to. They were there <em>in support</em> of BLM. They didn’t disagree with other marchers—or if they did, it was over the appropriateness of using that phrase to support the BLM cause. The point about slogans can explain this fact; they didn’t disagree because “All Lives Matter” hadn’t yet become the slogan that it is today.</p>
<p>What are we to make of this? After all, slogans are useful things. “Black Lives Matter”, for one, has been enormously successful as a rallying cry for social change. And calls for national unity are often disguised attempts to prevent oppressed groups from expressing their specific grievances. But perhaps at this point, at least when we’re talking to the unconverted, slogans unnecessarily deepen disagreement. Perhaps the moral is that, if we want to reach greater agreement on the problems of racial discrimination facing us today—to the extent that that’s possible—we should move away from sloganeering and toward substantive dialogue.</p>
<p>In any case, it’s worth a shot. If only there were some tidy encapsulation of the point—preferably one shorter than 140 characters.</p>
<p>#DialogueMatters.</p>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:11:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/18/all_lives_matter_versus_black_lives_matter_how_does_the_philosophy_of_language.htmlIan Olasov2016-07-18T15:11:00ZLifeHow Did “All Lives Matter” Come to Oppose “Black Lives Matter”? A Philosopher of Language Weighs In.241160718001black lives matterlanguageIan OlasovLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/18/all_lives_matter_versus_black_lives_matter_how_does_the_philosophy_of_language.htmlfalsefalsefalseA linguist weighs in on how "all lives matter" came to oppose "black lives matter":Part of the genuine disagreement lies in the nature of slogans themselves.Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty ImagesThe claim that “Black Lives Matter” is a way of pointing out that black Americans are especially likely to be brutalized by the police and criminal justice system.How Diamond Reynolds Transformed Politeness Into Protesthttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/14/how_diamond_reynolds_yes_sir_transformed_politeness_into_protest.html
<p>The officer fired four bullets. Diamond Reynolds fired five <em>sir</em>s. In <a href="https://www.facebook.com/100007611243538/videos/1690073837922975/">live-streaming</a> the fatal <a href="http://www.startribune.com/aftermath-of-officer-involved-shooting-captured-on-phone-video/385789251/">shooting</a> of her boyfriend, Philando Castile, by police in a St. Paul suburb last week, Reynolds didn’t just provide dramatic video testimony of police violence: She also transformed a simple term of deference and submission—<em>sir—</em>into a powerful tool for dignity and subversion.</p>
<p>In the opening minutes of Reynolds’ Facebook video, we witness Castile slumped over in the driver’s seat, his white shirt soaked in blood. We glimpse his eyes roll back and hear a low, agonizing groan. The officer, his gun trained on a fading Castile, screams his commands—and his own shock, it seems, at his actions. But Reynolds is <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3ec9863050bc4ded954cf7a0f3256f70/transcript-facebook-video-fatal-police-shooting">narrating</a> with clarity and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/07/the-incredible-calm-of-diamond-lavish-reynolds/">composure</a>, repeatedly addressing the officer as <em>sir</em>. “You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir.” Her unassuming, polite <em>sir</em> counterbalances the horror of the gun, the blood, the officer’s “Fuck!”</p>
<p>But Reynolds’ <em>sir </em>is more than a straightforward act of obedience: It is literally disarming. It defuses the crisis, demonstrating to the officers she is present and attentive: “I will, sir, no worries, I will,” she responds to an order. Her <em>sir</em> levels out the volatility, following a script all the actors know by heart: “Yes I will, sir.” Her <em>sir</em> even helps soothe the initial trauma, as if creating in its extra syllable a breath-catching pause, a pulse-calming rest—for her, for her daughter in the back seat, for the viewer, for the officer. In expressing deference with <em>sir</em>, Reynold stays in control.</p>
<p>While Reynolds’ mannerly <em>sir</em> eases the scene, it also focuses our attention. “You told him to get his ID, sir, his driver’s license,” Reynolds says. “You told him to get it, sir.” Each <em>sir</em> refers us back to the officer. In a 10-minute video, Reynolds uses <em>sir</em> five times, four of them within that intimate minute before she exits the car. As she provides this first-person narration, she also pivots to third-person documentation, panning from the all-too-familiar outcome—another dead black male—to the problem: the use of lethal force against black Americans. Wielding the megaphone of Facebook Live, she addresses one <em>sir</em> to address the broader <em>sir</em> of authority and state.</p>
<p>Even as she keeps our attention on the officer, Reynolds’ <em>sir</em> doesn’t sound contemptuous or condemnatory. And her lack of irony, when we consider it in a wider context, points to a much broader irony. Commenting on last week’s shootings in Falcon Heights as well as Baton Rouge and Dallas, former New York City major <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/10/rudy-giuliani-black-fathers-need-to-teach-kids-the-real-danger-to-them-is-not-the-police/?utm_term=.8a2bffbfc287">Rudy Giuliani urged</a> black Americans to teach their kids to respect the police. Yet Reynolds called the officer <em>sir</em>, as Americans are generally taught to address male elders and men in positions of power. Giuliani’s comments, and arguments like them, are profoundly deaf to the double standards of white privilege.</p>
<p>Given racial disparities in the U.S., many black Americans receive an additional education, “<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/conversation-black-parents-kids-cops/story?id=27446833">the talk</a>,” about how to handle police interactions. Parents teach their children practical tips for survival, including commanding a language of politeness. While Reynolds’ <em>sir</em> is natural and unforced, we must also hear in it the harsher reality, that black Americans have long had to counteract ugly stereotypes of anger, aggression, even animality. We must hear in it, too, the master-servant dyad of a not-too-distant American past.</p>
<p>Finally, Reynolds’ <em>sir</em> compels us, her co-witnesses, to confront ourselves: How would we have reacted in the crucible of this shooting? What would we have called an officer who, whatever he reacted to, just shot our loved one? Would we ever possess the equanimity and grace to refer to such a person as <em>sir</em>?<em> </em>Many of us are far too practiced in survivalistic <em>sir</em>s, but many more can’t imagine Castile’s situation. Reynolds’ <em>sir</em> addresses us, as if pleading: <em>And what will you do about this, sir</em>? For those of us, it defies our complacencies, our entitlements.</p>
<p>This challenge, in the end, is the power of Reynolds’ <em>sir</em>: She transforms a title of respect into a refusal to accept brutality, a performance of transcendent dignity, and a disruption of the status quo. She transforms politeness into political protest, civility into subversion of a social system so often stacked against its citizens of color. She transforms <em>Yes, sir</em> into <em>No, sir</em>.</p>Thu, 14 Jul 2016 17:26:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/14/how_diamond_reynolds_yes_sir_transformed_politeness_into_protest.htmlJohn Kelly2016-07-14T17:26:00ZLifeHow Diamond Reynolds Transformed Politeness Into Protest241160714001police violenceprotestlanguageblack lives matterJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/14/how_diamond_reynolds_yes_sir_transformed_politeness_into_protest.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow Diamond Reynolds transformed politeness into protest:The officer fired four bullets. Diamond Reynolds fired five sirs.Stephen Maturen/Getty ImagesDiamond Reynolds.Terrorist Is Now a Biased Term. Journalists Should Stop Using It.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/12/it_s_time_for_journalists_to_stop_using_the_word_terrorism.html
<p>All available evidence suggests that when Micah Johnson sniped police officers in downtown Dallas on Thursday, he intended it as a political act.</p>
<p>During the ensuing standoff, he told police negotiators that he was angry about the recent <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/the_killings_in_baton_rouge_minnesota_and_dallas_reveal_the_vicious_cycle.html">apparently unwarranted</a> killings of black men by police, and “stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers,” <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dallas-police-ambush/dallas-suspect-was-upset-about-recent-police-shootings-wanted-kill-n605916">according to Dallas Police Chief David Brown</a>.</p>
<p>Johnson could not have reasonably believed that he’d shoot enough cops to actually diminish the capacity of law enforcement agencies to unjustifiably kill black people. He did it to send a message, to arbitrarily terrorize cops in the way that he felt arbitrarily terrorized by them.</p>
<p>Am I arguing, then, that journalists (like me) should be calling Johnson a terrorist?</p>
<p>No, even though I think <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism">the dictionary definition of that word</a> clearly applies to him.</p>
<p>I think the fact that almost nobody is calling Johnson a terrorist —like almost nobody called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof">Dylann Roof</a> (the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooter) or the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge">Oregon wildlife refuge occupiers</a> terrorists—demonstrates how uselessly arbitrary and loaded that word has become, and I think it’s time for journalists to stop parroting it uncritically.*</p>
<p>I’ll grant you that what I’m about to claim is an unprovable counterfactual, but past experience suggests to me that if Micah Johnson’s name had been Muhammad Jabir, right-wing media would have immediately jumped on the T-word. If his Facebook activity had linked him to Islamism (instead of Black nationalism, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/08/what_we_know_about_reported_dallas_shooter_micah_xavier_johnson.html">as in Johnson’s case</a>), mainstream media would have at least batted it around, too.</p>
<p>We used to use <em>terrorist</em> to describe all kinds of people, from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army">Irish Catholic republicans</a> to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League">American Jewish radicals</a>. But since 9/11, we’ve been using it much more swiftly in reference to Islamists. (In fairness, that’s partly because Islamists have been doing a lot of terrorism over that time.)</p>
<p>You might be thinking, “But people DID call the Oregon occupiers terrorists! Didn’t this very blog detail that controversy?</p>
<p>Indeed, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/01/20/terrorists_jamokes_armed_activists_what_should_we_call_the_protestors_in.html">it did</a>. Likewise, now that we’re a few days out from Dallas, we’re seeing <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/opinions/dallas-domestic-terrorism-bergen/">a</a> <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/headlines/20160710-floyd-micah-johnson-s-ideological-soulmates-are-other-mass-killers.ece">few</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/dallas-gunman-lone-wolf-terrorist/story?id=40437592">people</a> arguing that Johnson was a terrorist.</p>
<p>But the very existence of those articles proves my point: Nobody wrote any think pieces about whether to call Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab">underwear bomber</a>) or Abdelhamid Abaaoud (ringleader of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks">the Paris attacks</a>) terrorists. It was the immediate consensus that they were terrorists. I wonder what those two names have in common?</p>
<p>In contrast, whether to apply the T-word to Johnson, Roof, or Colorado Planned Parenthood shooter Robert Dear has been the subject of <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/why-the-south-carolina-shooting-suspect-should-not-be-called-a-terrorist/">public</a> <a href="http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/is-robert-lewis-dear-a-radical-christian-terrorist-not-by-a-long-shot-1.11178152">debate</a>. I wonder what those three names have in common?</p>
<p>We call Islamists terrorists even when the description isn’t apt, as in this CNN lower third <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/12/world/meast/who-is-the-isis/">from a story</a> about battles between ISIS and Iraqi military forces over the control of territory—something that meets the <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war">dictionary definition of war</a> much better than the definition of terrorism.</p>
<p>Certainly, ISIS uses terrorism as a tactic, but that doesn’t make everyone who fights for ISIS categorically a terrorist, any more so than everyone who’s ever fought for the IRA. (Please commenters, note that nowhere here have I made the slightest moral equivalency between any of the groups or individuals I’ve mentioned.)</p>
<p>The fact that <em>terrorists</em> has acquired a powerful religious—and specifically Islamic—connotation is substantively consequential. Calling a suspect a terrorist gives authorities <a href="https://www.aclu.org/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism">enhanced powers</a> to investigate, charge, and punish. Politicians use the T-word to stoke public anxieties and gain support for their policies, or they studiously avoid the word if doing so bolsters a different narrative they fancy.</p>
<p>It’s revealing that there was little debate among writer-types like me about whether to call Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan a terrorist.* Rather, government was the epicenter of that debate. The Obama administration avoided the T-word for six years, purportedly to avoid biasing Hassan’s judicial process, with allegedly ulterior motives ranging from a desire to preserve the <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/22/pentagon-will-not-label-fort-hood-shootings-terror/">narrative of a declining al-Qaida</a> to a miserly <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/09/fort-hood-shooting-victim-denied-benefits-despite-purple-heart-decision.html">denial of benefits</a> to the victims’ families</p>
<p>If a prosecutor or a politician or anybody else involved in a story calls someone a terrorist (or notably doesn’t), that’s important and media should report it, with clear attribution. But I’m not sure if reporters themselves should be labeling people with a word that has become, in effect, discriminatory.</p>
<p>Some of my fellow word people, in discussing this same issue, have arrived at a less extreme conclusion than mine: Just use the T-word consistently, <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-06-10/terrorism-white-race-religion-muslim/55503084/1">they say</a>. Maybe that was once the right advice, but words and their connotations change over time with their usage, and therefore so must news organization policies.</p>
<p>The big problem with <em>illegal immigrant</em> wasn’t that reporters applied it inconsistently—the term simply became too judgmental, too toxic for neutral copy. So, in 2013, <a href="https://blog.ap.org/announcements/illegal-immigrant-no-more">the <em>Associated Press Stylebook </em>dropped it.</a></p>
<p>Likewise, I think we’ve reached the same point with the T-word. Reuters—a less influential force in American journalism style than the AP—agrees with me. From <a href="http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=T#terrorism.2C_terrorist">its style guide</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Reuters may refer without attribution to terrorism and counterterrorism in general, but do not refer to specific events as terrorism. Nor does Reuters use the word terrorist without attribution to qualify specific individuals, groups or events.
</blockquote>
<p>I think that’s the right policy, and the AP should follow suit.</p>
<p>Eschewing both <em>terrorists</em> and <em>illegal immigrants</em> alike is in keeping with a broader and <a href="http://ethics.npr.org/?s=labels">widely accepted</a> best practice for journalists: Avoid labels! When possible, describe what people do instead of labeling what you think they are.</p>
<p><em><strong>*Correction, July 12, 2016:</strong> This post originally misspelled Dylann Roof’s first name and Nidal Hasan’s first and last names. </em><br /> </p>Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:21:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/12/it_s_time_for_journalists_to_stop_using_the_word_terrorism.htmlAdam Ragusea2016-07-12T17:21:00ZLife<em>Terrorist</em> Is Now a Biased Term. Journalists Should Stop Using It.241160712001terrorismlanguagedallas shootingAdam RaguseaLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/12/it_s_time_for_journalists_to_stop_using_the_word_terrorism.htmlfalsefalsefalse"Terrorist" is now a biased term. Journalists should stop using it."Terrorists” has acquired a powerful religious—and specifically Islamic—connotation.Stewart F. House/Getty ImagesPolice Chief David Brown, updating the media on the Dallas shootings, eschewed the term <em>terrorist</em>.Why the F--- Do We Do This and Why the ---k Don’t We Do That?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/11/why_the_f_do_we_always_notate_swearing_the_same_way.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/why-the-f-do-we-do-this-and-why-the-k-dont-we-do-that/">post </a>originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>OK, look at this f---ing s---. And this f--king sh--. And this f-cking sh-t. And how about this s--t? Really, who are the c---s, c--ts, or c-nts who do that?</p>
<p>And, more importantly, why the ---k don’t those --nts do it another way? What the -uck keeps them from doing this --it? Or, for that matter, <em>fu--</em> and <em>shi-</em> and <em>cu--</em>? Or, um, <em>-uc- </em>or <em>-un-</em>?</p>
<p>Really, look. If I write <em>f---</em> it could stand for a whole bunch of words, but we know which one is worth censoring. But likewise, if I write <em>---k</em>&nbsp;we know it stands for a word worth censoring, and what the -u-- other word could it be than <em>fuck</em>? So why not do that?</p>
<p>There are a few reasons. First, of course, it’s “the F-word,” not “the word that ends in K.” But that still leaves us with the issue of why we privilege that first letter. Convenience of alphabetization, yes, but in truth we could as easily alphabetize by last letter, or by first vowel, if we wanted. If we preferred that, we would set up the means to do so, just as we normally leave out <em>the</em>&nbsp;when alphabetizing (even iTunes has gotten the hang of this).</p>
<p>But when words come out of our mouths, they come out first part first. There is that salience of the initial. This also means that if we happen to stop halfway through a word because we’ve been cut off, we may write it like <em>What the fu--</em> or <em>What’s this shi--</em> or <em>You rotten cu--</em>. Which means that censoring the words by censoring just the very ends looks like we’ve just cut the person off.</p>
<p>But it also looks, erm, wrong. It looks like a statue with a fig leaf over the knees but not the penis.</p>
<p>And there’s the meat of it. The vowel is really the business part of the word. The first letter is the face—what we need to recognize it—but the vowel is the cock or cunt of the word, and the letters after it are the upper legs: not really the fucker, but they lead to it.</p>
<p>And <em>that</em>&nbsp;all has to do with syllable structure as we English speakers know it.</p>
<p>Every syllable has a <strong>nucleus</strong>. This is what gives it its motive force. It’s the peak of sonority—the loudest part, the part you can sustain the longest. It’s normally a vowel or sometimes a liquid consonant (like the /l/ in <em>detestable</em>—the final <em>e</em>&nbsp;is silent), but it can be any sustainable sound, including the /n/ in <em>couldn’t</em>, the /m/ in <em>hmm</em>, and even the /ʃ/ in <em>shh</em>. This is, as I have said, the business part. The genitals. The part that has to be covered if any part has to be covered—except when there’s no onset, in which case it has to be the face of the word (as in <em>a—</em>&nbsp;and <em>a—hole</em>).</p>
<p>A syllable (in English, though not in every language) can have a <strong>coda</strong>. This is the consonant(s) coming after the nucleus, like the /k/ (written <em>ck</em>) in <em>fuck</em>, and the /t/ in <em>shit</em>, and the /nt/ in <em>cunt</em>. The coda (if there is one) and the nucleus together form the <strong>rime</strong>, which is a precious linguistics way of spelling <strong>rhyme</strong>, which is exactly what it looks like: the part of the word that rhymes with other words that, uh, rhyme with it.</p>
<p>A syllable can—and often does—have an <strong>onset</strong>. This is the consonant or consonants that start it off. It’s the /f/ in <em>fuck</em>, the /k/ in <em>cunt</em>, the /ʃ/ in <em>shit</em>. It’s also the /spl/ in <em>split</em>. In English, we have clear rules about what consonants can and can’t be combined how in an onset. For instance, we can put /s/ before a lot of consonants, and /r/, /l/, /w/, and /j/ (that’s “y”) after a lot of them, but not vice-versa. The first sound in the onset is the sound we hear first (unless there’s no onset), and so it serves as the face of the word—unless there is no onset.</p>
<p>The only part of a syllable that’s not the rime is the onset, which shows us again that the onset is the face of the word, and helps explain why the coda is more censorable than the onset. Also, while the vowels (or syllabic consonants) give the thrust of the word, the consonants give it definition and distinctiveness—an analogy sometimes used is that the vowels are the blood and the consonants are the bones and muscles.</p>
<p>When we have a sound that uses two letters to spell, such as the /ʃ/ in <em>shit</em>&nbsp;and the /k/ in <em>fuck</em>, we have a choice of writing both (which will be clearest) or writing just the one at the edge of the word (<em>f--k, s--t</em>). It’s a tougher one when one letter by itself doesn’t stand for the sound (as in <em>s</em>&nbsp;instead of <em>sh</em>), because <em>s--t</em>, for example, looks rather as though the first sound should be /s/, as in <em>spit</em>&nbsp;or <em>snot</em>&nbsp;or other words not really worth censoring but still potential targets of prudes.</p>
<p>So, to sum up: We keep the first letter (if we keep anything) because that’s the face of it. If there’s no onset, that means we have to make the nucleus the face of it (special privilege). We can censor either the entire rime, or just the nucleus and perhaps whatever consonants are closest to it (<em>c--t</em>&nbsp;rather than <em>c-nt</em>). But above all, unless it’s the first sound of the word, we must censor the nucleus, which is the thrust of the word. Because <em>-u--, --i-, </em>and <em>-u-- </em>are like statues with fig leaves over everything <em>except</em>&nbsp;the genitals. You can see the naughty bit and at the same time you aren’t sure <em>whose</em>&nbsp;naughty bit it is. Give us a face, you motherf---ers!</p>
<p><em><strong>See also:</strong> <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/how-to-write-dirty-tongue-twisters/" title="How to write dirty tongue-twisters First off, let’s all agree that a big part of the fun of dirty tongue-twisters is that you’re trying not to say a dirty word. The dirty word is just waiting there, impossible to ignore, magnetic, and you’re supposed to dance all around the rim of it without slipping into…">How to Write Dirty Tongue-Twisters</a></em></p>Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:45:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/11/why_the_f_do_we_always_notate_swearing_the_same_way.htmlJames Harbeck2016-07-11T15:45:00ZLifeWhy the F--- Do We Do This and Why the ---k Don’t We Do That?241160711001swearinglanguageJames HarbeckLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/11/why_the_f_do_we_always_notate_swearing_the_same_way.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy the f--- do we do this and why the ---k don’t we do that?Why the f--- didn't I think of this?Tim Boyle/Getty ImagesWhat letters would you bleep out?Elie Wiesel’s Profound and Paradoxical Language of Silencehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/07/elie_wiesel_s_profound_and_paradoxical_language_of_silence.html
<p>Elie Wiesel, the Nobel prize–winning Holocaust survivor <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/02/holocaust_survivor_and_nobel_peace_prize_winner_elie_wiesel_dies_at_87.html">who died last week at 87</a>, was a prolific author. He was an outspoken activist. He was a distinguished professor and lifelong student of long-standing cultural and religious traditions of storytelling.</p>
<p>Yet in a 2006 <a href="http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/faith/ci_3864884">interview</a>, Wiesel shared that when Orson Welles approached him about making a film adaptation of <em>Night</em>, his masterful autobiographical account of the Holocaust, he refused. He wrote silences between his words, he explained, and film left no room for those silences.</p>
<p>Silence was the paradoxical language Wiesel developed in complex ways throughout his work and life. “Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence,” recalls his narrator and stand-in, Eliezer, in <em>Night</em>, “which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live.” Wiesel didn’t speak to that nocturnal silence until 10 years after he was freed from Auschwitz. Writing and abandoning a <a href="http://www.pbs.org/eliewiesel/life/henry.html">600-page thesis</a> at the Sorbonne, he turned to a different form of testimony: journalism.</p>
<p>Why was he silent on the Holocaust? “I was afraid of language,” Wiesel remarked. He needed to be sure he was using the right words. He described this groping, aching search for language in his preface to the <a href="http://www.hhs.rogersschools.net/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=5533694">2006 translation</a> of <em>Night</em>. His thinking here is worth a longer look:</p>
<blockquote>
Convinced that this period in history would be judged one day, I knew that I must bear witness. I also knew that, while I had many things to say, I did not have the words to say them. Painfully aware of my limitations, I watched helplessly as language became an obstacle. It became clear that it would be necessary to invent a new language. But how was one to rehabilitate and transform words betrayed and perverted by the enemy? Hunger—thirst—fear—transport—selection—fire—chimney: these words all have intrinsic meaning, but in those times, they meant something else. Writing in my mother tongue—at that point close to extinction—I would pause at every sentence, and start over and over again. I would conjure up other verbs, other images, other silent cries. It still was not right. But what exactly was &quot;it&quot;? &quot;It&quot; was something elusive, darkly shrouded for fear of being usurped, profaned.
</blockquote>
<p>Wiesel pushed on, and “trusted the silence that envelops and transcends words.” He drafted a nearly <a href="http://www.pbs.org/eliewiesel/life/henry.html">900-page</a> literary memoir in Yiddish: <em>Un di Velt Hot Geshvign</em>, or <em>And the World Remained Silent</em>. It was edited down and published in 1956<em>, </em>further<em> </em>pared to just over 100 trenchant pages in its subsequent French and English translations as <em>Night. </em>This<em> </em>work<em> </em>was his creative core; the rest of those silenced pages, the rest of his corpus, radiated outward like tree rings and talmudic commentary in his future writing.</p>
<p>But what was this strange and mystical enveloping, transcending silence Wiesel spoke of? For one, it’s the silence of the victims. The Holocaust had silenced his language, culture, history, family, faith, identity—the lives of more than 6 million Jews.</p>
<p>It’s also the silence of the ineffable. No words can ever properly articulate the Holocaust: It “cannot be described, it cannot be communicated, it is unexplainable,” <a href="http://www.pbs.org/eliewiesel/life/elie-wiesel-notes.html%2341">Wiesel said</a>. “To me it is a mystical event. I have the feeling almost of sin when I speak about it.” The Holocaust’s truth lies beyond language, a reality accessed only through direct, first-hand experience.</p>
<p>And it is the silence of disbelief. It’s our loss of words when we can’t fathom an evil that so defies imagination or understanding. It’s the silence of denial, as the Nazis tried to keep the Holocaust a <a href="https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007273">state secret</a>. It’s the silence of indifference: “How was it possible that men, women, and children were being burned and that the world kept silent?” Eliezer wonders in <em>Night</em>. We don’t have an answer to this urgent question. We only have silence.</p>
<p>Wiesel’s silence is also <a href="http://www.pbs.org/eliewiesel/life/henry.html">cosmic silence</a>. Wiesel grappled with how God could do or say nothing in the face of such suffering. For him, this silence demanded we protest, mock, and deny God. In speaking out against God, we speak up for humanity, refusing to be silenced by despair and destruction, refusing to remain silent about iniquities and injustices. In <em>Night</em>, Wiesel at one point defies his Yom Kippur fast—and more: “There was no longer reason for me to fast. I no longer accepted God’s silence.” According to Wiesel’s complicated theology, this protestation ultimately affirms God in spite of God. A voice transcends the silence, in spite of the silence.</p>
<p>Wiesel even understood silence as its own form of action. <a href="http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmember/wie0int-1">As he painted it for the American Academy of Achievement</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
You can be a silent witness, which means silence itself can become a way of communication. There is so much in silence. There is an archeology of silence. There is a geography of silence. There is a theology of silence. There is a history of silence. Silence is universal and you can work within it, within its own parameters and its own context, and make that silence into a testimony. Job was silent after he lost his children and everything, his fortune and his health. Job, for seven days and seven nights he was silent, and his three friends who came to visit him were also silent. That must have been a powerful silence, a brilliant silence.
</blockquote>
<p>Simon Sibelman, in his sweeping <a href="https://books.google.ie/books/about/Silence_in_the_Novels_of_Elie_Wiesel.html?id=qHJuQgAACAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y"><em>Silence in the Novels of Elie Wiesel</em></a>, concludes Wiesel’s silence possesses an “<a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40059733?seq=1%23page_scan_tab_contents">innate positive ontology</a>”: Emerging from the silencing devastation of the Holocaust is a regenerative and redemptive silence. Sibelman’s metaphysics can be as daunting as Wiesel’s mysticism, but we can feel the effects of this silence where it matters most: in his actual text.</p>
<p>Sibelman directs us to ways Wiesel uses silence as a literary technique, like a musician building a melody as much on rests as on notes. Consider this momentous passage in <em>Night</em>, when Eliezer, watching a child slowly die by hanging one day in camp, overhears a fellow observer:</p>
<blockquote>
Behind me, I heard the same man asking:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
&quot;For God's sake, where is God?&quot;
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And from within me, I heard a voice answer:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
&quot;Where He is? This is where—hanging here from this gallows...&quot;
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
That night, the soup tasted of corpses.
</blockquote>
<p>Wiesel’s diction is sparing and telegraphic but still conjures up ghastly images and provocative ideas in its terseness. He frequently pauses with punctuation, as if giving us time to catch our breath or compelling us to listen closely to the diastole and systole of each syllable. His lines are short and end-stopped, or suddenly break off to leave entire philosophies unsaid in the chasm of ellipsis. Wiesel’s prose becomes poetry, disclosing meaning as much through absence as through presence, as much through silence as through sound.</p>
<p>And finally, we can see how Wiesel develops his rich language of silence by the many ways he uses the word <em>silence</em>. Sticking with his seminal <em>Night</em>, <em>silence</em> acts a character who speaks many lines throughout the story. We watch families share final meals in silence. We hear mothers and children cry themselves into silence in cattle cars. We observe men avoid (or survive) beatings by staying silent. We witness Nazi officers tell their prisoners to be silent. We watch wise fathers fall silent, unable to answer their sons’ questions. Night is described as silent. Death is described as silent. Silence is heavy. Silence is oppressive. Silence is defiant. Silence is indifferent. God is silent. The sky, watching over all the world and the ashes of the Holocaust’s too many victims, is silent.</p>
<p>Wiesel’s language of silence is loud and restive, embracing complex and often contradictory forces. But in the end, Wiesel’s refusal to be silent—on the Holocaust, on oppression and suffering, on the Jewish experience, on the human experience—made a sublime music, a lasting art, out of silence. On a particularly bleak evening in <em>Night</em>, one of Eliezer’s fellow prisoners manages to make some final music on his beloved violin. “He was playing a fragment of a Beethoven concerto,” he writes. “Never before had I heard such a beautiful sound. In such silence.”</p>Thu, 07 Jul 2016 17:03:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/07/elie_wiesel_s_profound_and_paradoxical_language_of_silence.htmlJohn Kelly2016-07-07T17:03:00ZLifeElie Wiesel’s Profound and Paradoxical Language of Silence241160707001John KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/07/elie_wiesel_s_profound_and_paradoxical_language_of_silence.htmlfalsefalsefalseElie Wiesel's profound and paradoxical language of silence:Silence was the paradoxical language Wiesel developed in complex ways throughout his work and life.Win McNamee/Getty ImagesElie Wiesel.“Krup You!” No More: How Broadway Learned to Swearhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/05/how_broadway_learned_to_swear.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/give-my-revamps-to-broadway/">post</a>&nbsp;originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>When Stephen Sondheim was writing the lyrics for “Gee, Officer Krupke,” to be sung in the 1957 musical <em>West Side Story</em>, he was hoping to be the first person to use a serious four-letter obscenity in a Broadway show: “Gee, Officer Krupke—Fuck you!” This did not come to pass. Columbia records balked because obscenity laws would prohibit the recording from being shipped over state lines. In the end, the line was changed to “Krup you!”—Sondheim has since maintained that it may be the best lyric line in the show. Is there any doubt what the lyric would be if it were written today? In the 50-plus years since <em>West Side Story</em>, the expletive is not only fully accepted in the theater, but roundly applauded.</p>
<p>On the other side of record, so to speak, words that were accepted once have now been deemed as politically incorrect. The audience that was present at the first production of Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein’s musical <em>Showboat</em>&nbsp;in 1927, based on Edna Ferber’s caustic play about alcoholism, miscegenation, gambling, and desertion, heard these opening lines:</p>
<blockquote>
<em>Niggers all work on de Mississippi,<br /> Niggers all work while de white folk play –<br /> Loadin’ up boats wid de bales of cotton,<br /> Gittin’ no rest till de Judgement Day.</em>
</blockquote>
<p>Since then the lyrics “niggers all work” have been altered to “Negros all work,” “black folk all work,” “colored folk work,” and perhaps the most anesthetizing of all, “Here we all work on the Mississippi.” Yes, let’s all work and sing together on the Mississippi, happily toten’ barges and carryin’ bales. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it? Of course, Hammerstein was keenly aware of prejudice, bigotry, and the subjugation of fellow human beings, and his original lyric was a well-thought-out prelude to a show with several subplots. Along with segregation and inequality in the South, there was a tale of resilient women struggling to succeed in a male-dominated world. And yet, those opening lyrics can still encroach upon our comfort zone with the visceral immediacy of a kidney punch. John McGlinn’s 1988 recording of <em>Showboat</em>&nbsp;restored the original lyrics that had been dutifully excised after the original production, but the verity of his project was squeamishly avoided in the Broadway revival of 1994, in which the lines reverted to the more facile “colored folk.” After all, it was now supposed to be a musical, and even if it had serious undertones, the overtones were that of a carefully financed contemporary Broadway show after a blockbuster hit—and not an insightful or thought-provoking jaunt into reality the way Hammerstein’s prot&eacute;g&eacute; Stephen Sondheim was to ascribe to and attain throughout his unparalleled work in the theater.</p>
<p>Sondheim did get his chance to pepper a 1991 score with a modicum of <em>fucks</em>, but it wasn’t the language that shocked theatergoers. The play was <em>Assassins</em>, a dark, humorous, melancholy, and disturbingly insightful drama about the assassins and would-be assassins of American presidents. No amount of swear words could be as powerful as nine pistol-toting individuals staring out at you—the audience—aiming and firing. Mr. Sondheim, though a recognized giant of musical theater, has never had a play of his run more than 1,000 performances on Broadway. More than having passed that Broadway milestone, <em>The</em>&nbsp;<em>Book of Mormon</em>&nbsp;has had tickets for choice performances running up to $500 a seat. Clearly, the raucous little play had its finger on the pulse of the theater-going public, and that pulse hardly skips a beat, today, when one of the characters exclaims, “Jesus called me a dick!”</p>
<p><em>The</em>&nbsp;<em>Book of Mormon</em>, a Tony Award–winning, and startlingly popular, musical was a collaboration between the creators of television’s <em>South Park</em>&nbsp;(Trey Parker and Matt Stone) and the composer of <em>Avenue Q</em>&nbsp;(Robert Lopez). The plot revolves around two pious Mormon missionaries who are sent to do the Lord’s work in Africa. As if Mormons don’t have enough trouble with reprobates like myself in the United States, who pretty much slam the door on them when they come a-knocking, these na&iuml;fs must confront a one-eyed, genocidal warlord, a group of angry AIDS-infected villagers, and other sacrilegious locals, including one man who claims he has maggots in his scrotum, who are all blaming God for their predicament. Such a theme in a world where Broadway playgoers await yet the next overly produced saccharine Disney blockbuster would seem to spell immediate death on the Great White Way. On the contrary, it opened to raves and was hailed by <em>New York Times</em>&nbsp;critic Ben Brantley, who had this to say in his glowing review: “Now you should probably know that is also blasphemous, scurrilous and more foul-mouthed than David Mamet on a blue streak. But trust me when I tell you that its heart is as pure as that of a Rodgers and Hammerstein show.” From the song “Hasa Diga Eebowai”:</p>
<blockquote>
UGANDANS:
<br /> Hasa Diga Eebowai!
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
ELDER CUNNINGHAM:
<br /> Am I saying it right?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
ELDER PRICE:
<br /> Excuse me sir, but what EXACTLY does that phrase mean?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
MAFALA:
<br /> Well, let’s see… “Eebowai” means “God.”
<br /> And “Hasa Diga” means… “Fuck You.”
<br /> So I guess in English it would be “Fuck you, God!”
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
UGANDANS:
<br /> Hasa Diga Eebowai!
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
ELDER PRICE:
<br /> WHAT?!
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
MAFALA:
<br /> When God fucks you in the butt-
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
UGANDANS:
<br /> Hasa Diga Eebowai!
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
MAFALA:
<br /> Fuck him right back in his cunt!
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
UGANDANS:
<br /> Hasa Diga Eebowai!
<br /> Hasa Diga Eebowai!
<br /> Hasa Diga Eebowai!
<br /> Fuck you, God!
</blockquote>
<p>Prior to <em>Book of Mormon</em>, Lopez garnered the 2002 Tony Award for the “kidult” musical <em>Avenue Q</em>, which was something of a grown-up’s version of <em>Sesame Street</em>, complete with lead-playing puppets.* With songs like “It Sucks to Be Me” and ”The Internet Is for Porn” <em>Avenue Q</em>&nbsp;was a topical recitation of Gen-Xers coming to grips with the onset of adulthood and responsibility. In the latter song, the entrepreneurial Trekkie Monster sings of many of the characters’ real interest in going online:</p>
<blockquote>
The Internet is for porn.
<br /> The Internet is for porn.
<br /> Grab your dick and double
<br /> Click for porn! Porn! Porn!
<br /> Pooorn!
<br /> Pooorn!
</blockquote>
<p>In a parody of<em>&nbsp;Sesame Street</em>’s relationship between Bert and Ernie, the closeted Rod avoids the issue of his gender preference to his pal Nicky in the song “If You Were Gay,” but Rod really plays up the fa&ccedil;ade in the tune “My Girlfriend Lives in Canada”:</p>
<blockquote>
Her name is Alberta,
<br /> She lives in Vancouver.
<br /> She cooks like my mother,
<br /> She sucks like a Hoover.
</blockquote>
<p>As for the smash hit <em>Hamilton</em>, about the life and trials of Alexander Hamilton in the early years of the republic, there are a handful of swear words—a few <em>shits</em> and a few <em>fucks</em>. For a show of this length and topicality, the profanity feels appropriately sparing. When the show will be made available to tens of thousands of high schoolers next year, the language will not be altered. Considering the acceptance of erstwhile foul language and sexual connotations, <em>Hamilton</em>&nbsp;would most likely be rated PG-13 today. Whether in song or in dialogue, the recent musical theater, as well as nonmusicals, is rife with swearing. <em>Billy Elliot</em>, <em>Jersey Boy</em>s, <em>Motown: The Musical</em>, the revival of <em>Pippin</em>, <em>If/Then</em>, and <em>Spring Awakening</em>—all highly regarded shows—are just a few examples. And, although it was not a musical, I cannot leave off without mentioning a play that went as far as giving its title one that could not be printed in most newspaper reviews: <em>The Motherfucker With the Hat</em>.</p>
<p>Regarding the April 2011 opening of the play, <em>Times</em>&nbsp;critic Ben Brantley opened his review thusly: “The play that dare not speak its name turns out to have a lot to say. Stephen Adly Guirgis’s vibrant and surprisingly serious new comedy opened on Monday night at the Gerald Schoenfeld Theater under a title that cannot be printed in most daily newspapers or mentioned on network television.” During the course of his review, he openly bemoans the fact that he must not mention the play’s title: “This is vexing for those of us who would like to extol the virtues of ‘The ___________ With the Hat,’ at least in public.” He prudently refers to it as the “Hat,” much as a superstitious actor finds safety under the umbrella of the “The Scottish Play” for <em>Macbeth</em>. Unlike other <em>Times </em>writers who ardently defend the newspaper’s wholesome front, Brantley makes his feelings of being stifled very clear: “But I’ll admit that upon first hearing the name of his play, I thought irritably, ‘How the ___ am I going to write about it?’ As you see, I have already devoted much space-consuming ink to my quandary.” Another New York paper, <em>Daily News</em>, went a step further and boldly referred to the play as “The Motherf— With the Hat” in its review. Both the<em>&nbsp;Wall Street Journal</em>&nbsp;and <em>New York Post</em>&nbsp;reviewed it with the official Broadway title, “The Motherf**ker With the Hat.” Interestingly, it was only the <em>Times</em>&nbsp;critic who openly caviled over the expurgation, while Terry Teachout just alluded to its unprintability in the <em>WSJ</em>&nbsp;review: “Don’t let the stupid title put you off. If you do, you’ll miss one of the best new plays to come to Broadway in ages.”</p>
<p>For those who look down on Broadway musicals as an inferior art form, they should be well aware that the hallowed stage of the Metropolitan Opera is no longer immune to the infringement of swearing. Although not yet fit to print in the<em> New York Times</em>, the salacious word <em>motherfuckers</em> was sung aloud from the stage of the Metropolitan Opera in February of 2011. This was all the while it was being simulcast over international radio, as well as in movie theaters in high definition, during John Adams’ production of <em>Nixon in China</em>. And it wasn’t even Dick Nixon who said it!</p>
<p>Back to Broadway, the irreverent <em>Book of Mormon</em>&nbsp;has been touted as the most potentially obscene production to ever grace the Great White Way. We shall see<strong>.</strong></p>
<p><strong><em>*Correction, July 5, 2016</em></strong><em>: This post originally misstated that Trey Parker and Matt Stone co-wrote </em>Avenue Q<em> with Robert Lopez. They did not. </em></p>Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/05/how_broadway_learned_to_swear.htmlRob Chirico2016-07-05T13:30:00ZLifeHow Broadway Learned to Swear, From Sondheim to
<em>Hamilton</em>241160705001swearingbroadwayhamiltonRob ChiricoLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/07/05/how_broadway_learned_to_swear.htmlfalsefalsefalseIt's a big krupping deal.It's a big krupping deal.Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty ImagesThe marquee for the famously profane Book of Mormon near Times Square on May 27, 2015 in New York City.Branger. Debression. Oexit. Zumxit. Why Did Brexit Trigger a Brexplosion of Wordplay?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/29/why_has_brexit_sparked_an_explosion_of_wordplay.html
<p>Stocks plunged. Political parties imploded. Fear flared. Europe as we know it quaked. The world freaked out last Friday after the United Kingdom <a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/b/brexit.html">voted to leave</a> the European Union, or “Brexit,” the now-household blend of <em>British</em> and <em>exit </em>the process is going by. And across the media, the shocking results triggered a paroxysm—a <em>bravalanche</em>, a mass <em>brysteria</em>—of Brexit-induced <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau">portmanteaus</a>.</p>
<p>Welcome to <a href="https://arnoldzwicky.org/2016/06/25/leaving-in-tears-and-a-portmanteau/">Portmantexia</a>, as linguist Arnold Zwicky has christened this brave new world: Many U.K. citizens who voted to <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bremain&amp;src=typd">Bremain</a><em> </em>bemoaned the <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=brevastation&amp;src=typd">brevastation</a> this <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=brexplosion%20&amp;src=typd">brexplosion</a> detonated. Assessing the damage, some <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23brexiteer&amp;src=typd">Brexiteers</a> now expressed <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bremorse&amp;src=tyah">bremorse</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23bregret&amp;src=typd">bregret</a>, or<em> </em><a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23regrexit&amp;src=typd">regrexit</a>,<em> </em>over<em> </em>the<em> </em>results. These <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/6/25/12031254/no-brexit-article-50">Bracksies</a><em> </em>wondered how the U.K. might stage a <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23breturn%20&amp;src=typd&amp;lang=en">breturn</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=brecrimination&amp;src=typd">Brecriminations</a> in Parliament began to fly. Some who were <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-lewishargreave/is-brexit-the-worst-polit_b_10615036.html">in-bretween</a><em> </em>wished they hadn’t skipped the polls on voting day. Dismayed and afraid, immigrants, urbanites, and businesses weighed a <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=brexodus&amp;src=typd">brexodus</a><em> </em>from the U.K. Plenty of <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=brexpert&amp;src=typd&amp;lang=en">brexperts</a><em> </em>weighed in. A number of tweeters have summed up this <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=brexistential%20crisis&amp;src=tyah">brexistential crisis</a> with a tour de force <a href="https://twitter.com/ethicistforhire/status/746268941488689152">take on K&uuml;bler-Ross’ classic five stages of grief</a>: <em>brenial</em>, <em>branger</em>, <em>brargaining</em>, <em>brepression</em> or <em>debression</em>, <em>bracceptance</em> or even <em>euukceptance</em>.</p>
<p>Over on the continent meanwhile, right-wing separatists in the Netherlands felt a boost for their <em>Nexit </em>cause, in France for <em>Frexit</em>, in Italy <em>Italexit</em>. German nationalists turned to their native <em>Deutschland</em> for <em>Dexit</em>, Austrians to <em>&Ouml;sterreich</em> for <em>Oexit</em>. <em>Spexit,</em> <em>Pexit</em>, <em>Fixit</em>, <em>Polexit</em>, <em>Swexit</em>, even <em>Czexit</em>: Each country in the EU is getting the <a href="https://twitter.com/SEO_SEA_SEM/status/746287734982062080">“-exit” treatment</a>, inspiring other <a href="http://qz.com/713953/possible-names-for-eu-exits-for-all-members-of-the-eu/">wry variations</a> like <em>Retireland</em> or <em>Quitaly</em>. Stateside, some have joked about a <em><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/texas_is_doing_its_very_own_version_of_brexit.html">Texit</a></em> for the Lone Star State, a <em>Trexit</em> from (or by) the Donald.</p>
<p>But why did we collectively turn to the wordplay of these <em>brortmanteaux</em>&nbsp; and <em>portmanteauxits </em>in the immediate wake of the EU referendum results? After all, <em>Brexit</em>, or <em>Brixit</em> as it appeared early on, is documented all the way back in <a href="https://blogactiv.eu/blog/2012/05/15/stumbling-towards-the-brexit/">May 2012</a> and was <a href="https://global.handelsblatt.com/edition/453/ressort/politics/article/brexit-history-of-a-fateful-word">modeled</a> after <em>Grexit</em>, or Greece’s hypothetical exit from the eurozone. A mix of linguistic and cultural reasons helps explain why.</p>
<p>First, the phonology of <em>Brexit</em> was ripe for proliferation. The consonant cluster [br] and vowel [ɛ], as <a href="http://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ipa-sounds/ipa-chart-with-sounds/">phoneticians render</a> the <em>E </em>in <em>exit</em>, are very common sounds in English. We can easily stack [br] onto an existing word, or stitch together <em>-xit</em> with the connective tissue of [ɛ], to yield a word that sounds new but English-y.</p>
<p>Second, <em>Brexit </em>needed no training as a new word, courtesy of the lexical load its familiar <em>exit </em>already carried. It welcomed prefixes and suffixes: <em>post-Brexit</em> and <em>Brexit-esque</em>. It took on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_noun">agency</a>: a <em>Brexiter</em>. It functioned as a modifier: the <em>Brexit</em> fallout. It doubled as verb: <em>to</em> <em>Brexit</em>. Novel but natural, <em>Brexit</em> easily set up shop in English grammar, open for the business of wordplay.</p>
<p>Third, <em>Brexit </em>is right at home in our current zeitgeist of new word formation in English: <a href="http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kemmer/Words/wordtypes.html">blending</a>. Older blends, like <em>brunch</em> and <em>smog</em>, are common to the point of invisibility. <a href="https://next.ft.com/content/e28e320c-176a-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e">More recent examples</a> seem contrived and forced and, as such, are met with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/17/portmanteau-words-brangelina-brexit-camerunt-stop">backlash</a>: <em>healthineer</em> or <em>sustainagility </em>are good examples. Others, such as <em>listicle</em>, <em>athleisure</em>,&nbsp; and <em>bromance</em>, prove successful because they fill a semantic gap in the language.</p>
<p>But blending has become such a common and productive process of neologism in English, woven into the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/new-words-for-the-contemporary-condition-post-modern-portmanteaus-from-clickspittles-to-stealthies-10083464.html">very fabric</a> of our mashup, niche-seeking, and self-referential culture, that we are breaking apart words in whole new ways. Like the <em>libfix</em>, a term coined by <a href="https://arnoldzwicky.org/2010/01/23/libfixes/">Arnold Zwicky</a>. As Neal Whitman <a href="http://theweek.com/articles/460279/linguistic-tour-best-libfixes-from-ana-zilla">explained the phenomenon</a> for the<em> Week</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
Sometimes a particular word gets pulled into so many portmanteaus that a fragment of that word becomes &quot;liberated&quot; to become an affix (i.e. a prefix or suffix) all by itself — but one that has a much more specific meaning than what you get with affixes like un-, -ly, or -ness. The best example might be the suffix
<em>-gate,</em> which jumped free of the name
<em>Watergate </em>to embark on a successful career turning any noun into a scandal.
</blockquote>
<p><em>Brexit</em> is a natural candidate for libfixation. <em>Br-</em> quickly jumped free of the word <em>Brexit</em> to signify anything related to the political reality of Brexit. As warmed up by <em>Grexit</em> and <a href="https://twitter.com/StanCarey/status/277099407969775617">predicted</a> by several linguascenti, <em>-exit</em> or <em>-xit</em> lent itself to “a sudden, unexpected, or premature departure.” <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/in-scotland-voters-back-eu-with-an-eye-on-scoxit/articleshow/52886035.cms">Scoxit</a><em> </em>has been <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/opinion/scoxit-could-lead-to-brexit/">revived</a><em> </em>to<em> </em>Scotland’s possible departure from the U.K. Indians dubbed <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/22/forget-brexit-rexit-is-the-real-problem/">Raghuram Rajan’s stepping down</a> from the Royal Bank of India the <em>Rexit</em>. <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-36643270">Lionel Messi’s retirement</a> from international football is known as the <em>Mexit</em>. Yet earlier, South Africans were watching out for a <em>Zumxit</em> <a href="http://raconteur.net/magazine/zumxit-the-age-of-the-portmanteau">if President Jacob Zuma resigned</a>. Some are even freeing <em>brex </em>from <em>Brexit, </em>if <a href="https://twitter.com/adriandaub/status/747690590482075648">brexcringing</a> and the<em> Sun</em>’s <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1342831/streets-full-of-polish-shops-kids-not-speaking-english-but-union-jacks-now-flying-high-again/">“How the Brex Was Won”</a> are any measure.</p>
<p>So why did the Brexit blends spread so fast? The answer points us to a fourth&nbsp; and fifth reason for the <em>brinvansion</em>. Many in politics, media, and, of course, the U.K. and Europe were long familiar with the 4-year-old <em>Brexit</em>. Oxford Dictionaries even entered <em>Brexit</em> into its <a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/brexit">online dictionaries</a>. But<em> </em>many more around the globe, especially Americans, first tuned into the EU referendum right before or after the vote. And their point of introduction, their first impression was the unusual, playful, but still very English-y and topical coinage: <em>Brexit</em>. Radio hosts glossed the term at the top of their segments; podcasters remarked on its irksomeness. Facebook users likened it to <em>breakfast</em>. Linguists have discussed its <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=26320">pronunciation</a> and <a href="http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=26427">syntax</a>. In its coverage of Brexit, the <em>New York Times</em> still <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/world/europe/britain-european-union-brexit.html?_r=0">marks it</a> as a novel formation. The language of the Brexitsphere was already marked and meta, primed for, welcoming of wordplay.</p>
<p>Finally, the victory of “Leave” was a massive surprise. Today, we turn to social media, that new public square, to process such big, surprising news. In this space, observers—and the residents directly affected, above all—searched for words and leaned on humor to understand, cope with, celebrate, or try to articulate such a dramatic and chaotic experience. <em>Brexit</em> wordplay was a way to participate in and make sense of this historic moment in real time. Like bringing chips and dip to a party, <em>Brexit</em> was already linguistically and culturally packaged, ready for us to rip them open and start snacking.</p>
<p><em>Brexit</em>, as a word and phenomenon, isn’t going anywhere. It, and its family of variations, will <a href="https://twitter.com/bgzimmer/status/747598112995172352">likely contend</a> as the 2016 Word of the Year in various dictionaries and associations. But as for <em>brexplosion</em> or <em>Zumxit</em>? As with so much of our viral memes and trending hashtags, we greedily and compulsively gobbled up all the chips and dip. We quickly reached peak <em>Brexit</em>, er, <em>peakxit</em>.</p>
<p><strong><em><a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/b/brexit.html">Read more Slate coverage of the Brexit.</a>&nbsp;</em></strong></p>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 15:48:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/29/why_has_brexit_sparked_an_explosion_of_wordplay.htmlJohn Kelly2016-06-29T15:48:00ZLife<em>Branger. Debression.</em>&nbsp;
<em>Oexit</em>.
<em>Zumxit</em>. Why Did
<em>Brexit </em>Trigger a
<em>Brexplosion</em>&nbsp;of Wordplay?241160629001languagebrexitJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/29/why_has_brexit_sparked_an_explosion_of_wordplay.htmlfalsefalsefalseBranger. Debression. Why has Brexit triggered such an explosion of wordplay?A mix of linguistic and cultural reasons.Photo illustration by Christopher Furlong/Getty ImagesA European Union breferendum.When Lyrics Were Clean, Almosthttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/27/a_history_of_swearing_in_music.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/when-lyrics-were-clean-almost/">post</a>&nbsp;originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>The Greek philosopher Plato wrote, “Forms and rhythms in music are never altered without producing changes in the entire fabric of society.” He also said, “No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death,” so it’s better that we stick with his take on music. In 20<sup>th</sup>-century America, ragtime, jazz, rock, and later punk and rap, all bristled against the accepted music of their times. Although the earliest indictments of these genres were aimed primarily at the music itself, it was not really until the 1950s that songs were being banned for their lyrical content. This content, though, was generally regarded for its subject matter and not necessarily for the language used in expressing the ideas. This is to say that although the songs were deemed vulgar or subversive, actual profanity—or “sweary” language, if you will—was still a rare bird. However anyone swore in real life, cussing, cursing, or just “potty-mouth talk” did not really begin to make its way into the recording booth until the late 1960s.</p>
<p>For example, the 1950s saw the birth of rock ’n’ roll. From its outset, rock was deemed rebellious, savage, and even ungodly. Just the mention of the term rock ’n’ roll provoked controversy because it was thought to imply the sexual act. As rock began to heat up, it was met with verbal assaults of it being “cannibalistic and tribalistic,” as well as a dangerous communicable disease with music appealing to adolescent insecurity that drove teenagers to do outlandish things. Try as you might, the closest you will probably get to finding actual swear words in songs of the ’50s would be in suggestive references in a song like Dave Bartholomew's &quot;My Ding-a-Ling,&quot; which was later made into a hit by Chuck Berry.*</p>
<p>While there were many more less discreet songs out there, they were rarely heard on air. Nobody would dispute the “copulatin’” nature of songs like “New Rubbin’ on That Darned Old Thing” by Oscar’s Chicago Swingers, “Shave ’Em Dry” by Lucille Bogan, or “Hot Nuts” and “Buck Naked Blues” by Lil Johnson, but they were usually on sale as “party records” not meant for radio play. One song that may have started out as a raunchy tune in clubs but underwent bowdlerizing when it was published and recorded was “Hesitation Blues.” One version was published by Billy Smythe, Scott Middleton, and Art Gillham. Another was published by W.C. Handy as “Hesitating Blues.” Because the tune is traditional, many artists have taken credit as writer, frequently adapting the lyrics of one of the two published versions. Adaptations of the lyrics vary widely, though typically the refrain is recognizably consistent. The song is a jug band standard and is also played as blues and sometimes as Western swing. It’s been covered by such artists a Janis Joplin, Dave Van Ronk, Willie Nelson, and Hot Tuna, among many, many others. The lyrics span from the mildly suggestive to the direct. This is a verse from the Art Gilliam:</p>
<blockquote>
<em>I’ve got “ham” in my name, I might be awful dum.</em>
<br />
<em>But I’ve got more ideas of loving, than Wrigley has gum.</em>
<br />
<em>How long, how long I have to wait?</em>
<br />
<em>Can I get you now, must I hesitate?</em>
</blockquote>
<p>And here’s one from Jelly Roll Morton:</p>
<blockquote>
<em>She said, “Touch my bonnet, touch my shawl,</em>
<br />
<em>Do not touch my waterfall,”</em>
<br />
<em>Oh, how long do I have to wait?</em>
<br />
<em>Yes, if I get you now—won’t have to hesitate.</em>
</blockquote>
<p>In a recording by Morton, however, when he comes to a particular verse, he indeed hesitates to sing it:</p>
<blockquote>
<em>There’s a girl sittin’ on the stump,</em>
<br />
<em>I know, I know she’s on the stump,</em>
<br />
<em>Just for how long—This is a dirty little verse—ah, do I wait,</em>
<br />
<em>Couldn’t say that—Say it—[laughter]—Oh, it can be dirty—Don’t mind me</em>
<br />
<em>Can you get you now—do I have to hesitate?</em>
</blockquote>
<p>Meanwhile, verses from this unattributed version don’t beat around the bush—or maybe they do:</p>
<blockquote>
<em>Woman got a pussy that can cut you to the bone,</em>
<br />
<em>You can fuck it, you can suck it, you can leave it alone,</em>
<br />
<em>Tell me how long must I wait,</em>
<br />
<em>Can I get it now, or must I hesitate?</em>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>I’m comin’ in your pussy, I comin’ in your can,</em>
<br />
<em>If you don’t hurry up, I’m comin’ in your hand,</em>
<br />
<em>Tell me how long must I wait,</em>
<br />
<em>Can I get it now, or must I hesitate?</em>
</blockquote>
<p>Although censorship has hounded the music business throughout the past century, out-and-out swearing has been mostly relegated to later rock and rap, and, therefore, to a very select, and generally younger, audience. True, the Dominoes shocked mainstream audiences with their 1951 song “Sixty Minute Man,” but the lyrics, while anything but modest, still steered clear of direct profanity: “There’ll be fifteen minutes of kissin’, then you’ll holler, ‘please don’t stop.’ There’ll be fifteen minutes of teasin’, and fifteen minutes of pleasin’, and fifteen minutes of blowin’ my top.” Nevertheless, it’s hardly as blatant as Prince declaring “We can fuck until the dawn” in “Erotic City,” or “Let’s Get Buck Naked and Fuck” by Ice-T.</p>
<p>Other songs and songwriters had been banned not for what they said, but for what they might have said. In 1968, radio stations in El Paso, Texas, banned all Bob Dylan records because they couldn’t make out the words and thought “he might just be saying something that they don’t like.” Perhaps the most famous example of this was the 1963 song “Louie Louie” by the Kingsmen. The lyrics were so difficult to understand that the FBI was asked to investigate for obscenities. No lyrics were ever officially published, and after two years of investigation, the FBI concluded that they were unintelligible. Still, the censors were more likely looking for subversive or sexual content rather than specific profanity. Nobody was crossing that line—yet.</p>
<p>Swearing is universal, and the reasons—or excuses—for it are as diverse as are the very words and phrases that we have all come to know, love, or damn. Nevertheless, until comparatively recently, broadcasting so-called dirty words over the air and dropping the “F-bomb” in polite, public conversation were apt to shock people, but that has all been dramatically changing right before our eyes—and ears. And so it is with musical lyrics. Just as vice presidents telling senators to “fuck” themselves a few decades ago would have been unheard of—or just unheard in public—Cee-Lo Green’s “Fuck You” would have been as unimaginable as a demagogic billionaire convincing millions of Americans he should be president.</p>
<p>Finally, while we will never know where the word cocktail actually comes from, who was Jack the Ripper, or where all of your lost socks have gone, so, too, may we never learn who dropped the first F-bomb in a song. Thus far, credit goes to the super clean-cut American pianist Eddy Duchin. His 1938 cover of Louis Armstrong’s “Old Man Moses,” with Patricia Norman on vocals, caused a scandal for its wink-wink use of innuendo. The lyric “bucket” was heard as “fuck it,” and it is commonly thought to be the first use of the F-word in popular music. Of course, we hear what we want to hear sometimes. Did John Lennon mumble, “I buried Paul” at the end of “Strawberry Fields Forever,” or, as Lennon maintained in interviews, the phrase was actually “cranberry sauce”? And would anyone reading this even blink an eye if you heard the words “fuck it” in a song today? Cranberry sauce!</p>
<p><em><strong>*Correction, June 27, 2016: </strong>This post originally misidentified the writer of Dave Bartholomew's song &quot;My Ding-a-Ling&quot; as Chuck Berry.</em></p>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:34:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/27/a_history_of_swearing_in_music.htmlRob Chirico2016-06-27T16:34:00ZLifeWhen Lyrics Were Clean, Almost241160627001musicswearingRob ChiricoLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/27/a_history_of_swearing_in_music.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhen lyrics were clean, almost:Who dropped that F-bomb?Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesThink that’s a clean record? Not if it's playing Chuck Berry’s “My Ding-a-Ling” it's not.What Happened to All of Baby’s Articles and Pronouns?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/24/the_grammar_origins_and_meaning_of_the_undetermined_baby.html
<p>“When it comes to breastfeeding,” author Shannon Payette Seip opens <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0740771205/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>If These Boobs Could Talk</em></a><a href="http://www.apple.com">,</a> “people want to know: How is baby doing? Is she latching on? Is he eating well? How is baby’s weight gain?” Her wry lament continues: “Baby this, baby that. Baby, baby, baby.”</p>
<p><em>Baby</em> indeed: Seip is onto something more than just the underappreciated toll nursing takes on a new mother. Note her usage of <em>baby</em>: “How is baby doing?” and “How is baby’s weight gain?” Not <em>my </em>baby. Not <em>your</em> baby. Not <em>the</em> baby. Not <em>Baby </em>with a capital <em>B</em>. Not even a <em>baby</em> with a name. Just the unmarked <em>baby</em>, a noun as naked as a newborn. What is going on with this—let’s call it “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determiner">undetermined</a>”—<em>baby</em>?</p>
<p>The undetermined <em>baby</em> is increasingly prevalent online. Take mom blogs. <a href="http://mom.me/baby/26936-why-baby-crying-app/">An article</a> on Mom.me addresses “Why Is Baby Crying? There’s an App for That.” Circle of Moms takes up this question <a href="http://www.circleofmoms.com/question/when-baby-old-enough-juice-other-beverages-1701679">on its forum</a>: “When is baby old enough for juice or other beverages?” On social media, <a href="https://twitter.com/maandachristine/status/743669295943553025">tweeters ask</a> new mothers, “How is baby doing?”</p>
<p>In an <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raquel-dapice/what-i-do-all-day-when-i-am-home-with-the-baby_b_4741568.html">extended example</a> in the<em> Huffington Post</em>, Raquel D’Apice puts to rest patronizing queries about how she spends her days with baby as a stay-at-home mother. Here’s an entry in her punchy blow-by-blow:</p>
<blockquote>
<u>10:05</u>. Get bored of playing with baby. Attempt one of the things from overzealous to-do list. Baby immediately crawls out of my vision and begins eating dog food. I abandon list and pull the dog food out of his mouth. He becomes sad. I cheer up baby by pretending to eat his hands.
</blockquote>
<p>Surely all these babies have names. They belong to parents. They even have a sex. So is this plain <em>baby</em> an outgrowth of our digital shorthand, like the nuts-and-bolts telegraphy of a text message, the get-to-the-facts stenography of <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/04/all_your_questions_about_pronoun_deletion_and_the_inexorable_death_of_the.html">emails</a>, the hashtagged, emojied cipher of 140-character bursts of communication? Does the modern, busy parent have no time or patience for grammar?</p>
<p>Perhaps internet language exerts an influence on it, but the undetermined <em>baby</em> isn’t purely motivated by the economy of tech talk. For one, many users still drop articles and pronouns from <em>baby</em> in tweets well before they run up against any character limits. For another, longer texts employ the nominally nude <em>baby</em> as well. <a href="http://www.apple.com">A section</a> in a pressure cooker cookbook, for instance, offers advice about “when it is time to feed baby.” <em>Your Baby’s First Year for Dummies</em> <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=cVDXa0N3-r8C&amp;pg=PT191&amp;dq=%22how+is+baby%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y%23v=onepage&amp;q=%22how%20is%20baby%22&amp;f=false">notes</a> how many hours “baby should be sleeping” each night. Plus, Google Books yields many examples that predate the internet, including one that reaches back into the <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=N9nJAAAAMAAJ&amp;q=%22how+is+baby%22&amp;dq=%22how+is+baby%22&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;redir_esc=y">late 19<sup>th</sup> century</a>, well before a famous 1949 example from film, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008SGVSBI/?tag=slatmaga-20">And Baby Makes Three</a></em>.</p>
<p>Perhaps the undetermined <em>baby</em> is just cutesy <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/11/26/baby_talk_does_slow_exaggerated_speech_or_motherese_as_it_s_called_aid_in.html">baby talk</a>? Infant-directed speech does feature a simplified grammar, including the omission of more complex parts of speech in favor of a sweet-voiced, streamlined <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93verb%E2%80%93object">SVO</a>. And certainly many parents coo such utterances as “Time for baby’s bath” to their babies. Yet in the instances we’ve seen so far, adults aren’t directing their language at infants. They’re addressing each other, grown-up to grown-up.</p>
<p>So is this <em>baby</em> a term of endearment, a pet name? No doubt parents—and their friends and family—express intimacy when they <a href="https://www.facebook.com/realtoddthicke/posts/1200262456673061">post</a> “Baby is happy” on Facebook. Some couples even display a similarly silly (or saccharine) baby talk with <em>mommy</em>, <em>wifey</em>, <em>daddy</em>, and <a href="https://twitter.com/JAZELLETWT/status/735875177821540352"><em>hubby</em></a>: “I love it when hubby brings home pizza!” But unlike these usages, <em>baby</em> is employed in far more (and far more serious) contexts. <a href="http://www.myvmc.com/videos/pregnancy-tests/">Here’s a passage</a> on pregnancy from the Australian website Virtual Medical Centre:</p>
<blockquote>
In terms of routine tests there is an anatomy scan done at about 19 weeks or so and that is an ultrasound scan to have a look at how the development of the baby is going because by that stage baby is fully formed. Obviously baby is not fully grown, but is fully formed.
</blockquote>
<p>The author even switches between “the baby” and “baby” in the same sentence. This is significant, for it evidences that <em>baby</em> has its own subtle grammar.</p>
<p>Grammatically, the undetermined <em>baby</em> is acting like a proper noun—a name, which doesn’t require a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determiner">determiner</a> like an article or possessive pronoun. Say baby’s name is Caleb. Your mother could FaceTime you eager “to see baby.” We can substitute Caleb for <em>baby</em> and the meaning is unchanged. (I suspect the undetermined <em>baby</em> originates either as such a substitute, a way for parents and professionals to refer to the as-yet-unsexed, prenatal child in a humanizing manner, or as a shortened attributive phrase, e.g. <em>baby boy</em> or <em>baby girl</em>.) But say you are in the waiting room at your doctor’s office and you pick up a pamphlet. “So You’re Having Baby?” you read, furrowing your brow. We wouldn’t say this. We wouldn’t say “So You’re Having Caleb?” Because the undetermined <em>baby </em>refers to a very particular kind of baby.</p>
<p>The undetermined <em>baby—</em>if your childless male author can risk mansplaining the evidence—is the <em>baby</em> of the collective experience of infancy, that joyous tumult when a living, breathing, screaming, shitting being is completely dependent on the new parent to mind-read its every need. With the undetermined <em>baby</em>, parents can index their idiosyncratic efforts of managing a soon-to-be-born or newborn while simultaneously appealing to a broader community of <em>baby</em> whose parents survived it before them.</p>
<p>Compare, then, the different signals each of these <em>baby</em> usages might send out in an online message board. <em>When is a baby ready to eat solid food? </em>This<em> </em>has the generic abstraction of a Wikipedia page. <em>When is my baby ready to eat solid food? </em>This<em> </em>depends on your baby. But <em>when is baby ready to eat solid food? </em>This<em> </em>sounds a communal note, inviting dialogue, identification, and, as ungrammatical, infantilizing, or internet-y as the undetermined <em>baby</em> may feel to some, the wisdom of experience. The undetermined <em>baby</em>, it<em> </em>turns out, is quite determined.</p>Fri, 24 Jun 2016 14:58:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/24/the_grammar_origins_and_meaning_of_the_undetermined_baby.htmlJohn Kelly2016-06-24T14:58:00ZLifeWhat Happened to All of Baby’s Articles and Pronouns?241160624001languagebabiesparentingJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/24/the_grammar_origins_and_meaning_of_the_undetermined_baby.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat happened to all of baby's articles and pronouns?Surely all these babies have names. They belong to parents. They even have a sex.Cesar Manso/AFP/Getty ImagesWhere did our articles go?Donald Trump Is Really Maybe Dependent on This Verbal Cartwheel&nbsp;http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/22/donald_trump_uses_the_word_maybe_as_a_crutch_and_a_bludgeon.html
<p>Donald Trump is not a master of oratory. Within speeches, he meanders. From speech to speech, he repeats himself. Nobody cares. The point of his performances is that you can see him thinking, acting, in real time. You can see the struggle and the exertion.</p>
<p>There’s one word, in particular, that he uses as a walking stick as he clambers up the rocky face of cognition: <em>maybe</em>. Nine times out of 10, he uses it like a normal person (well, a normal fascist person). It’s often placed at the beginning of a sentence, where it seems conversational, like the reply to a question. It can carry an air of mischief, provocation, or heresy. “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/22/black-activist-punched-at-donald-trump-rally-in-birmingham/">Maybe he <em>should </em>have been roughed up.</a>” This is a Level 1 Maybe. Many (nowhere near all) of Trump’s most heinous accusations, over the years, have been leavened with such a maybe. “<a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/donald-trump/2011/03/30/trump-obama-maybe-hes-muslim">He doesn’t have a birth certificate.</a> He may have one but there’s something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim. I don't know. Maybe he doesn’t want that. Or he may not have one.”</p>
<p>A Level 1 Maybe is premeditated. A Level 2 Maybe may be—or not. After the shooting in Orlando, Florida, Trump suggested, as he often does, that Obama was soft on terrorism: “<a href="https://youtu.be/oxf5n7NuIAc?t=5m">There are a lot of people that think maybe he doesn’t want to get it</a>. A lot of people think maybe he doesn’t want to know about it. I happen to think that he just doesn't know what he’s doing. But there are many people that think maybe he doesn’t want to get it. He doesn’t want to see what’s really happening.” We’re still in the realm of the normal, but there’s something maybe a little anxious about these maybes. They are maybe a little cautious. They reflect the uncertainty of inventing fake thoughts and ascribing them to “many people.”</p>
<p>Which brings us to the rare Level 3 Maybe, my favorite maybe in the world. This maybe is so weak, so unexpected that it often requires an additional modifier to prop it up. It erupts in the middle of sentences, without regard to the surrounding syntax. It is a verbal fart. At the first Republican primary debate, Trump told Megyn Kelly, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y9_LJj7A68">I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be</a>, based on the way you have treated me.” It was like watching someone almost fall off a bicycle. Earlier this month, as he felt around in the dark for an opinion on whether people on the terror watch list should be able to buy guns, Trump said that he would talk to the NRA. “<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-inclination-terrorism-shouldnt-buy-guns/story?id=39961668">I understand exactly what they're saying.</a> You know, a lot of people are on the list that that really maybe shouldn’t be on the list and you know their rights are being taken away so I understand that.” And at a rally in West Virginia, in May, he addressed coal miners: “<a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?409094-1/donald-trump-addresses-supporters-charleston-west-virginia&amp;start=1418">I think your industry has probably been hit harder than maybe anybody.</a>” In all these cases, Trump seems to be possessed midsentence by uncertainty.</p>
<p>And yet there is something graceful about the Level 3 Maybe. For one thing, it is so inept that is has a kind of sprezzatura. It is powerful in its condescension. That’s why it feels so threatening and mobsterish when he uses it against Megyn Kelly. Conversely, it can signal humility, reasonableness. At a March rally in Janesville, Wisconsin, Trump said that his political success was “<a href="https://youtu.be/gd-ShB-RM3k?t=39s">something that has—maybe never happened</a> and they’re saying it’s a phenomenon.” He <em>wants </em>to say that it has “never happened,” <em>tout court</em>, but he also wants to project modesty and caution. (He goes on to say that he’s not a phenomenon, it’s not about him, he’s just a “messenger.”) You can see the beast thinking. And in appearing to move forward and backward at the same time, he conducts a kind of oratorical moonwalk.</p>
<p>Trump is cognitive chaos. He’s careless. And he will lose in November—probably. Maybe. Really.</p>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/22/donald_trump_uses_the_word_maybe_as_a_crutch_and_a_bludgeon.htmlAndrew Kahn2016-06-22T13:00:00ZLifeThe Many “Maybes” of Donald Trump241160622001donald trumplanguageAndrew KahnLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/22/donald_trump_uses_the_word_maybe_as_a_crutch_and_a_bludgeon.htmlfalsefalsefalseDonald Trump is really probably maybe dependent on this verbal cartwheel:They offer a window onto the drama unfolding in his head as he speaks.Mark Wilson/Getty ImagesTrump's &quot;maybe&quot; is a verbal fart.It’s Time We Got a Handle on Circle Jerkshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/21/what_exactly_is_a_circle_jerk.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/coming-to-grips-with-circle-jerks/#more-2932">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.</em></p>
<p>Today we’re going to answer the question “What the fuck is a circle jerk?” so you don’t end up like Melissa Rauch’s parents.</p>
<p>To begin with, what’s the difference between a circle jerk and a clusterfuck?</p>
<p>That’s a reasonable enough question. They’re both sexual references applied more often to organizations than to orgasms. They have the same rhythm; they have rhymes or near-rhymes on the stressed syllables; they have (dare I say it) liquids—/l/ and /r/—and fricatives—/s/ and /f/—plus two /k/ sounds each, one at the end. But <em><a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/clusterboinks-and-clusterfornications-the-children-of-clusterfuck/">clusterfuck</a></em>&nbsp;doesn’t literally refer to a potential real-world occurrence—it just replaces a literal <em>bomb</em>&nbsp;with a figurative <em>fuck—</em>and it’s unpleasant for everyone involved, whereas <em>circle jerk</em>&nbsp;refers to something that various texts and anecdotes assure us that some people literally do, and at least some of those directly involved in it may find it pleasant. Which is why circle jerks exist in the first place.</p>
<p>What, literally, is a circle jerk? All sources agree that it can refer to a circle of men, each jerking off the guy next to him. Some sources insist (sometimes vehemently) that this is the <em>only</em>&nbsp;thing it can literally refer to. Other sources allow for a circle where each member handles himself, and this seems to be what many early uses we can find in Google Books refer to (see below). This doesn’t make as good a metaphor, though in real-world mechanics it obviously requires less coordination. One thing we can say with certainty is that a situation in which numerous men jerk off onto a single person lying in the center is a <em>bukkake</em>, which also has great potential for use as a business metaphor but is a different thing. (I should also point out, for any unaware of this fact, that none of the above situations is what <em>cock ring</em>&nbsp;refers to.)</p>
<p>Can a circle jerk involve females? The expected mechanics of “jerking off” would seem to preclude it, but there’s nothing preventing an analogous female activity. <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/29bctg/what_should_the_female_equivalent_of_a_circlejerk/">A Reddit thread</a>&nbsp;generated assorted ideas about what one would call such a thing; the most popular one was <em>The View</em>, but I don’t think it was meant literally, and of course anyone, regardless of equipment, can participate in a figurative circle jerk.</p>
<p>There are also deviations in what <em>circle jerk</em>&nbsp;refers to figuratively. One definition makes it a synonym of <em>echo chamber</em>, where people (such as your Facebook friends) reinforce each other’s opinions. Another refers to an orgy of mutual congratulations such as we see during movie and TV awards ceremonies, or an organization or social sphere wherein mutual stroking is endemic.</p>
<p>My background is academia, and in that sphere it can refer to scholars citing each other’s papers. This isn’t necessarily an echo chamber; they often just name-check the other authors to show they’re current with what other people have said, then go ahead and say whatever it was they were going to say anyway—some genres of scholarly writing require an entire expected section of this kind of circle-jerking, called <em>literature review</em>. It’s also not necessarily congratulating or saying nice things about the other authors; in fact, if you mention someone else’s work, it’s in the context of building further on their results or correcting some data or conclusion—either way, you’re doing them one better. It’s just staying current with the club, staying on topic, showing you have a grip on other members of your scholarly field.</p>
<p>When did <em>circle jerk</em>&nbsp;come into popular usage? According to <a href="http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/circle-jerk">Knowyourmeme.com</a>, “The earliest known use of the term dates back to 1979, when the Los Angeles punk band the Bedwetters renamed their band to the Circle Jerks after one of the band members found it in a dictionary of English slang words.” Well, then, that’s not the earliest known use, is it? If it’s in a dictionary, someone’s used it already. They evidently mean the earliest known use of it in a popular culture context. Aerosmith actually recorded <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EreTeb0ZT6k">an instrumental track by that name</a>&nbsp;in 1977, but it wasn’t released until it showed up on compilation albums later on.</p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=circle+jerk%2Ccircle-jerk&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccircle%20jerk%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ccircle%20-%20jerk%3B%2Cc0">A Google ngram</a>&nbsp;shows <em>circle jerk</em>&nbsp;appearing at a low level in the mid-1900s and then shooting up starting in the late 1960s to mid-1970s; its use is still growing at a stiff rate. The earliest result in Google Books is a hit from 1952 in a book called <em>The Wild Green Earth</em>, but the excerpt displayed suggests that it does not mean the same thing. The word <em>jerk</em>, after all, has been around much longer, and in the early-to-mid 1900s calisthenics were sometimes called <em>physical jerks</em>&nbsp;without any apparent sense of impropriety (they were even on the program of activities at British summer resorts).</p>
<p>In books and magazines from 1959 onward, <em>circle jerk</em>&nbsp;shows up in literal reference, sometimes in pornographic stories, sometimes in po-faced documentary articles on the behavior of juvenile delinquents (I almost typed <em>javelin delinquents</em>, which would have worked in its own way). The first figurative use that shows up in the Google Books results is from May 1, 1972, in an article by Shana Alexander in <em>New York</em>&nbsp;magazine about Bella Abzug’s election campaign: “ ‘Liberal circle jerk time’ was at hand, said Joe Flaherty.”</p>
<p>From that time forward, graphically evocative figurative references gradually increase in frequency, and literal references also continue. It doesn’t get rubbed down to commonplace too quickly, but by the turn of the millennium the figurative use is showing up in mainstream fiction—here’s a good example from Stephen King’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/067102423X/?tag=slatmaga-20">Bag of Bones</a></em>: “I didn’t feel like a modern <em>fin-de-mill&eacute;naire</em>&nbsp;man on a spiritual quest to face his fears (I’m okay, you’re okay, let’s all have an emotional circle-jerk while William Ackerman plays softly in the background) …”</p>
<p>So. <em>Circle jerk</em>&nbsp;started as a very literal reference, then became a graphically evocative figurative reference, and is now tame enough to appear in mainstream fiction (but not yet the<em> New York Times</em>). But now that it is at least somewhat current in ordinary usage, it is also open to misconstrual, as Melissa Rauch’s parents demonstrated:</p>
<p>The confusion is understandable because “getting jerked around” has no current masturbatory reference—it doesn’t seem to have originated with one, either, or we wouldn’t see it used in an 1883 story in <em>Harper’s </em>magazine&nbsp;called “Eugenie’s F&ecirc;te Day”: “ ‘For once,’ she said to Miss Emily, ‘they did not jerk me around when they tried a suit on me to-day, nor tell me about my bones sticking out; because, I suppose, it was to be a birthday present to a girl like me.’ ” Bones sticking out notwithstanding, she clearly was not referring to a circle jerk.</p>Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/21/what_exactly_is_a_circle_jerk.htmlJames Harbeck2016-06-21T13:00:00ZLifeWhat Exactly Is a Circle Jerk?241160621001languageswearingJames HarbeckLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/21/what_exactly_is_a_circle_jerk.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhat exactly is a circle jerk?Here's a helping hand.Hannah Gal/ThinkstockYou Don’t Care if Someone Is Black, White, Green, or Purple? You Should!http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/14/why_you_should_care_if_you_don_t_care_whether_someone_is_black_white_green.html
<p>Last week, Fox sports reporter Emily Austen <a href="http://www.esquire.com/sports/news/a45726/emily-austen-barstool/">received an official reprimand</a> for her “insensitive and derogatory” remarks during a live Facebook video. “I didn’t even know Mexicans were that smart,” Austen had marveled, reflecting on the undocumented Texas student who earned a full ride to the University of Texas at Austin. Then Austen issued the following disclaimer from her colorblind heart: “I don’t care if you’re white, yellow, brown, purple.”</p>
<p>It was the taunt about Mexicans that drew down Fox’s censure, but Austen (pale beige) was also participating in a tried-and-true tradition: The invoking of bizarrely hued people to demonstrate her tolerance. Rhetorical human Skittles are so widespread that comic Mitch Hedberg mocked them in a 2002 stand-up routine: “You know how when it comes to racism, people say: ‘I don’t care if they’re black, white, purple or green’? Hold on now—purple or green? You gotta draw the line somewhere! To hell with purple people! Unless they’re suffocating—then help ’em.”</p>
<p>The joke is funny, see, because well-oxygenated violet humans do not exist. Green humans do not exist. <a href="http://www.metrolyrics.com/the-ballad-of-gordon-lyrics-barenaked-ladies.html#ixzz4BDIaFsUL">Yellow with polka dots on your head</a> humans do not exist. When writers scroll through the rainbow in pursuit of ever more outlandish skin tones to assign to their hypothetical fellow man, they almost always end up equating minorities with aliens.</p>
<p>Are they not also equating white folks with aliens? In theory, sure, but in practice the trope is most likely to snap into place when someone (usually white) wants to dismiss or pre-empt a charge of racism—or worse, justify their liking for a person of color. Take the earliest instance of prismatic person-listing I could find, courtesy of <a href="https://twitter.com/annachronous/status/741382779271847936">Anna on Twitter</a>. In this letter about the actor Sidney Poitier, from a 1968 edition of <em>Ebony </em>magazine, a Texas-dwelling fan avers: “To me, he’s clean-cut, decent and sexy. He is my favorite screen star, and I don’t care if Sidney is black, white, or purple.” Or consider another dispatch that appeared in a 1992 issue of the <em>Atlanta Journal-Const</em>i<em>tution</em>, in which a reader responded to an op-ed about a white woman fleeing an innocent black man: “I believe the letter writer was talking about me … I did not care that he was black, white, or purple. As long as women continue to be raped, as long as people continue to be robbed in parking lots, malls and automatic teller machines [<em>sic</em>], and as long as I feel unsafe, I’ll continue to run. No hard feelings.”</p>
<p>But how to avoid hard feelings when you’re also implying that dark skin is an unsightly detail, a flaw you’re willing to politely overlook? The site “<a href="http://stuffwhitepeopledo.blogspot.com/2009/03/invoke-strangely-colored-people.html">stuff white people do</a>” excavates an Internet comment about Barack Obama: “I don’t care if he’s black, white, yellow, red, brown, or purple with green spots. Everyone just be grateful and stop worrying about what color he is.” The blog then points out: “That’s pretty close to saying everyone should just <em>ignore </em>what color he is. … And why should they? Is [being black] so terrible?”</p>
<p>Noted paragon of sensitivity Eminem jumped on the skin-tones-that-don’t-exist-in-nature bandwagon, rapping, “now whether you’re black, white, or purple/ if you’re misunderstood … long as you know you’re up to evil/ and you’re no damn good…”</p>
<p>Confession time: I have partaken in this weirdly hued person trend. <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/06/06/patricia_lockwood_reviews_how_should_men_critique_poetry_by_women.html">Once upon a time</a>, I tried to establish a Hammurabi’s Code of poetry reviewing.</p>
<blockquote>
If you are a person, you can say your opinions about any person’s poetry. Straight white men can say things about straight white women’s poetry. Black gay men can say things about Asian transgender poetry. Women who turn into polyamorous donkeys on the stroke of midnight can say things about the poetry of little green fellows whose sexual fetishes lie beyond the scope of this analogy.
</blockquote>
<p>Later, I begged college students to <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/05/24/yale_students_want_to_remake_the_english_major_requirements_but_there_s.html">read the English canon</a>, despite its racist and sexist overtones.</p>
<blockquote>
The “stay in your lane” mentality that seems to undergird so much progressive discourse—only polyamorous green people really “get” the “polyamorous green experience,” and therefore only polyamorous greens should read and write about polyamorous greens, say—ignores our common humanity.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<p>Let’s leave to the therapists my dubious reliance on polyamory as a diversity signifier. (I’m sorry, polyamorists!) I wanted these passages to express, through hyperbolic humor, the irrelevance of race, gender, and sexual orientation as they pertain to reading literature. And I wanted to hint at the dizzying variety and specificity of the identities we can claim for ourselves by positing even more categories, even more shades. But race, gender, and sexual orientation <em>aren’t </em>irrelevant. My words reduced the reality of racial difference to a joke. Asian transgender poets endure actual hardships; were-donkeys do not. Like replying to a reminder that “black lives matter” with the cry that “all lives matter,” conjuring imaginary green people erases the facts on the ground for minorities—it allows pseudo-creative frippery to elide the real privilege of being white.</p>
<p>Color me ashamed.</p>
<p>(Also, referring to people as “black,” “white,” “brown,” “red,” or “yellow” evokes the “five color typology” of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, a 19<sup>th</sup>-century anthropologist who <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_terminology_for_race">divided humankind into a quintet of races</a>: white/Caucasian, black/Ethiopian, yellow/Mongolian, cinnamon- or flame-colored/American, and brown/Malaysian. Do we really want his legacy hovering over our expressions of tolerance?)</p>
<p>Perhaps the worst part, though, is when these words are placed in the mouths of people of color. In <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003QSNFMI/?tag=slatmaga-20">Remember the Titans</a>, </em>Denzel Washington’s character begins the difficult process of <a href="http://genius.com/Boaz-yakin-remember-the-titans-bus-loading-scene-annotated">integrating his football team</a>: “Listen up, I don’t care if you’re black, green, blue, white, or orange, I want all of my defensive players on this side, all players going out for offense over here.” There’s something lovely and seductive about the belief that, in 1971 Virginia, black equals green equals blue equals white. But na&iuml;ve rhetoric aside, a good coach in a Nixon-era American high school <em>would</em> care about the racial background of his players; he’d have to. Especially if he were black.</p>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 17:06:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/14/why_you_should_care_if_you_don_t_care_whether_someone_is_black_white_green.htmlKaty Waldman2016-06-14T17:06:00ZLifeYou Don’t Care if Someone Is Black, White, Green, or Purple? You Should!241160614002racelanguageKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/14/why_you_should_care_if_you_don_t_care_whether_someone_is_black_white_green.htmlfalsefalsefalseYou don't care if someone is black, white, green, or purple? You should!Down with rhetorical human skittles.Otto Greule Jr/Getty ImagesNo more rhetorical human Skittles, please.THIS. Why So Much This?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/14/the_designation_this_pushes_back_against_the_pressures_of_our_modern_lives.html
<p>Recently in the<em> New York Times</em>, Alexander Stern <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/is-that-even-a-thing/">posited an ontology</a> of our rampant tendency to categorize even the most mundane minutia of our lives as “a thing.” For the paper’s <em>Magazine</em>, meanwhile, Jody Rosen <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/how-everything-became-the-highest-form-of-praise.html?_r=0">examined our hyperbolic habit</a> of extolling quotidian pleasures as “everything.” These two linguistic trends, which are particularly pronounced on the web, have company: THIS.</p>
<p>Take this: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/dailykos/photos/a.416444264254.190398.43179984254/10154234674269255/?type=3&amp;theater">On Facebook</a>, the <em>Daily Kos</em> posted “YES. THIS.” This prefaced a photograph of a protester brandishing a handwritten sign, “It Wasn’t About Water Fountains in the 60s and It Isn’t About Bathrooms Now. Stop the Hate.” Or this: <a href="https://twitter.com/eobaltimore/status/735513568699949058">On Twitter</a>, @eobaltimore tweeted “Dear journalists: THIS,” quoting a tweet from <em><strong>Slate</strong></em> <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/25/content_and_its_discontents_it_s_massively_depressing_when_journalists_call.html">linking to an article on this very blog</a>.</p>
<p>The internet is fluent in the grammar of <em>this</em>, in part because the internet is a visual and textual medium. On a functional level, <em>this</em> serves as a simple demonstrative. It points users to information that immediately follows: a link, photograph, video, tweet, GIF, meme. <em>This</em> bridges context and content, creator and user, sharer and surfer.</p>
<p>A 2013 <em>BuzzFeed </em>article, <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/the-19-worst-things-ever?utm_term=.bind2VENyQ%23.ixazrWwNKZ">“The 19 Worst Things Ever,”</a> tested the limits of this <em>this</em>. It enumerated 19 consecutive <em>this</em>’s, the listicle’s sole body text, each introducing a photograph of some relatable everyday annoyance, like a closed pistachio or faulty cereal tab. Without <em>this</em>, the images would have drifted away from their center of gravity, the grabby title, like water scattered into a thousand droplets in outer space.</p>
<p>The internet is also a crowded marketplace. So <em>this</em> is clicky. Headline writers and advertisers take advantage of its antecedent ambiguity to conjure up curiosity in a technique called <a href="https://isojjournal.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/six-things-you-didnt-know-about-headline-writing-sensational-form-in-viral-news-of-traditional-and-digitally-native-news-organizations/">forward referencing</a>: “Lose weight with this one easy trick.” I want to lose weight, we say. I want it to be easy. What could it be, this <em>this</em>? We click through to find out.</p>
<p>But the <em>Daily Kos</em> wasn’t using <em>this</em> simply to link to content or attract attention. Its “YES. THIS.” was making a statement. Its <em>this</em> was issuing an all-caps, full-stopped endorsement of the protester’s proclamation. So wholeheartedly does the political blog agree that it doesn’t meddle with additional commentary. It presents the thing in itself immediately before us, perfect in its form and self-evident in its truth. This <em>this</em> is not a demonstrative pronoun. It’s raw declaration. It’s pure <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deixis">deixis</a>. THIS.</p>
<p>The grammar of <em>this </em>is evolving. Quoting a <em>Guardian </em>tweet linking to an op-ed rallying England’s National Union of Students, <a href="https://twitter.com/AnaOpp/status/737966625270472704">one tweeter</a> intensified her <em>this</em>: “THIS THIS THIS SO MUCH THIS.” This <em>so much this </em>is a thing, in fact. A <a href="http://dedalvs.tumblr.com/post/97282710037/gainesm-sizvideos-video-so-much-this">comment</a> on a <em>BuzzFeed</em> GIF-strip, ribbing patronizing questions straight folks asking lesbians, offered: “So. much. this.”<em> This </em>has mass. It has the thingness of a noun. It’s dense, heavy, uncountable, an entity <em>per se</em>.</p>
<p><em>This</em>, as we’ve seen,<em> </em>frequently expresses full-throated agreement with an opinion or position, especially on a heated and complicated topic. <em>SO MUCH THIS</em>, as <a href="https://www.facebook.com/RebeccaHainsPhD/posts/1202012829839477">one Facebook user</a> linked to a <em>Vox</em> piece censuring the internet mob clamoring for justice after the killing of the gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo.</p>
<p>But the rhetoric of <em>this</em> isn’t necessarily political. Increasingly, <em>this</em> resoundingly embraces less contentious matters. One <a href="https://www.facebook.com/attachmentparenting247/photos/a.283523411752884.56234.176540669117826/863302527108300/?type=3">Facebook group</a> shared an image that read “the mondayest tuesday ever.” “This. So much this,” the group commented. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/fallensorcery/photos/a.453177948139573.1073741828.448815658575802/496948280429206/?type=3">Another</a> exclaimed “So much this!” of an inspirational graphic featuring an open book overlooking the ocean: “Maybe it’s not about the happy ending. Maybe it’s about the story.” These are the <em>this</em>’s of ecstasy. They are elicited by a thought so precisely worded, by a sentiment so exquisitely encapsulated. By an experience, lingering dormant, amorphous, or unarticulated in our subconscious, so perfectly instantiated that we must megaphone our elation in that primordial pronoun: THIS.</p>
<p>In his psychology of <em>everything</em>, Rosen observes that “the sublime can ambush you at unlikely moments,” with “the power to obliterate the world for a minute or two.” In his philosophy of “a thing,” Stern concludes we catalog <em>a thing</em> to “feign unified consciousness in the face of a world gone to pieces.” <em>This</em>, too, has taken on its immediacy, mass, and energy to push back against the pressures of our modern lives. Of the onslaught of the hyper-now, the demands of 24/7 productivity, the traffic jams in the free exchange of ideas. Of the clangoring, labyrinthine bazaars where we must choose from too many options, opinions, products, and possibilities.</p>
<p>When we hear something clear and true through the noise, we must, like digital Whitmans, sound the barbaric yawp of THIS over the roofs of the interwebs. We must, like Wordsworths weary of an online world too much with us, bark the “Great God!” of “So much this.”</p>
<p>Not <em>that</em>, we decree. <em>This. </em></p>Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:18:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/14/the_designation_this_pushes_back_against_the_pressures_of_our_modern_lives.htmlJohn Kelly2016-06-14T15:18:00ZLifeTHIS. Why So Much
<em>This</em>?241160614001languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/14/the_designation_this_pushes_back_against_the_pressures_of_our_modern_lives.htmlfalsefalsefalseTHIS. Why so much “this”?The designation pushes back against the pressures of our modern lives.A Brief, Inglorious History of “Not Politicizing Tragedy”http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/12/the_orlando_shootings_and_politicizing_tragedy.html
<p>In the wake of a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/12/orlando_club_mass_shooting_updates_approximately_20_killed.html">horrific shooting</a>—the deadliest in American history—at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, early Sunday, our eyes turned to the prominent politicians of the day. How would they respond? Would they make meaningless noises or outline transformative policy proposals? Conversely, would they offer words of sorrow and empathy, or would they make the catastrophe all about them and their agendas?</p>
<p>On one end of the spectrum, Trump justifiably came in for criticism when he used the massacre as an occasion to <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/12/trump_on_orlando_shooting_appreciate_the_congrats_for_being_right.html">accept (nonexistent) congratulations on his perspicuity in matters of Islamic terrorism</a>. (“Donald Trump Needs to Quit Politicizing Post-Orlando Shooting and Get His Priorities Straight,” <a href="http://www.bustle.com/articles/166344-donald-trump-needs-to-quit-politicizing-post-orlando-shooting-get-his-priorities-straight">admonished</a> <em>Bustle</em>.)</p>
<p>On the other hand, in a deeply felt but circumspect and ultimately anodyne speech to the nation Sunday afternoon, President Obama seemed <em>too</em> cognizant of the pressure not to politicize tragedy. His <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/12/obama_on_orlando_massacre_an_act_of_terror_and_an_act_of_hate.html">most politically charged statements</a> alluded faintly to past slaughter, reminding Americans “how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub.” Yet the President’s remarks focused on supporting the families and mourning the victims. &nbsp;</p>
<p>As Max Read <a href="http://gawker.com/5927847/there-is-no-such-thing-as-politicizing-a-tragedy">observed</a> in 2012 after the fatal shootout at a <em>Dark Knight </em>screening in Aurora, Colorado, Americans know the anti-politicization script by heart. Pundits roar on cue about exploiting calamity. “Doesn’t the politicization of all of this, the relentless lying by the administration about the Islamic terror threat we face, make it harder for people to want to step forward and say what they see?” <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/fox-host-blames-obama-for-orlando-nightclub-shooting-before-bodies-can-be-recovered/">asked</a> Tucker Carlson on Fox News. (I can’t unravel his logic, but he seems to suggest that by not confirming facts <em>we don’t yet have</em>, Obama is preventing citizens from speaking up with their own baseless accusations.) And when Bernie Sanders brought up gun control on NBC, Chuck Todd <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/chuck-todd-asks-sanders-to-stop-trying-to-politicize-orlando-shooting-by-talking-about-guns/">questioned</a> whether it was possible to “ever have a conversation where we have the terrorism conversation and the gun conversation … without trying to politicize one version of events over the other.”</p>
<p>The impulse to resist “politicizing tragedy” has a long history. Some early stirrings came in 1988 when the National Association of Broadcasters objected to a drunk driving workshop coordinated by the Surgeon General’s office. The NAB felt the workshops had a “built-in bias” against beer and wine advertisements, and accused the SGO of “politicizing the emotional tragedy of drunk driving.” &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Three years later, in 1991, an official from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development batted away sobering shelter statistics by calling them “inaccurate” and adding: “Homelessness is too great a tragedy, individual and social, to politicize.”&nbsp;</p>
<p>After refusing to wear a red AIDS ribbon to the 1992 Emmy Awards, soap opera star Deidre Hall explained that “activists are now attempting to make the ribbon a visible litmus test for separating those who empathize and those who do not. This is misguided … It politicizes human tragedy.”</p>
<p>And so on. The first time the office of the presidency invoked “politicization” to deflect censure was in 1994, when White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers took then–Minority Whip Newt Gingrich to task for claiming that a helicopter crash might have been prevented had Clinton set aside more money for the military. “I think that we are very close to a significant mismatch between our defense budget and our foreign policy,” Gingrich said. Myers responded: “Any attempts to politicize that kind of tragedy are just highly inappropriate. … At a time when the next of kin hasn’t even been notified, to try to use an incident like that for political advantage is just unacceptable.”</p>
<p>A year later, however, it was Clinton being accused of exploiting the Oklahoma City bombing to take shots at his critics. After the president decried hateful speech spreading through the media and creating a poisonous anti-government climate, a <em>Washington Post </em>op-ed page featured a letter arguing that “President Clinton’s insensitive attempt to politicize this tragedy is an unconscionable act by a desperate politician” which “cheapens the lives of those unfortunate victims.” A few months later, then–House Rep. John Kasich slammed Clinton for politicizing base closings.</p>
<p>The term was taking off. In the span of two months during 1996, a car crash, a slain cop, and the accidental death of a toddler living in poverty were all wrongfully “politicized,” in the words of government officials. By the time mass shooters rampaged through Columbine High School in 1999, President Clinton was on his guard. He told a crowd in Houston that he “did not want to politicize” the incident. Then, recounted a journalist for the <em>Washington Post</em>, Clinton “pointed out that he favors reinstating gun buyer waiting periods under federal law, closing loopholes in the assault weapons ban that are ‘big enough to drive a truck through,’ and requiring background checks for those who buy weapons at gun shows.”</p>
<p>Running for president, George W. Bush accused his rival Al Gore of “making a political issue” out of shootings at a church in Fort Worth, Texas. When Gore asked, “How can you allow guns in churches?” a spokeswoman for the Bush campaign replied: “The American people are tired of politicians trying to politicize every tragedy.”</p>
<p>Since then, practically every calamity you can name has been, in the eyes of some, unjustly politicized: Sept. 11, Hurricane Katrina, Sandy Hook, Washington Navy Yard, et cetera. Others have <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/11/paris-attacks-bataclan-hollande-beirut/">already</a> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/politicizing-tragedy-aurora-colorado-shooting">written</a> <a href="http://gawker.com/5927847/there-is-no-such-thing-as-politicizing-a-tragedy">voluminously</a> <a href="http://www.bustle.com/articles/166359-dont-politicize-the-orlando-shooting-is-the-very-last-thing-you-should-be-saying-right-now">about</a> <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/10/7/9471503/politicize-shootings-gun-violence">why</a> <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/01/statement-president-shootings-umpqua-community-college-roseburg-oregon">this</a> script needs to be retired. Things that happen for political reasons, and have political consequences, demand that we scrutinize them through a political lens. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Crying “politicization” is itself politicization—a way to advance whatever slate of politics favors the status quo. Often people invoke policy goals in order to <em>get things done</em>; what’s at stake is whether these tragedies should be regarded as irreducible lightning strikes or problems with potential solutions. I’m sympathetic to those who say that death is irreversible and specific, not “about” anything but itself. And yet we know that lessons and change can come out of horror—it seems irresponsible to blind ourselves to the past’s instruction. As these lethal incidents recur, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/12/_15_other_times_president_obama_had_to_address_mass_shootings_during_his.html">echoing</a> each other down the years, Americans should put their pieties on hold and honor human pain through actions, not just words. We should accept that reducing the body count might just fall within our power.</p>Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:51:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/12/the_orlando_shootings_and_politicizing_tragedy.htmlKaty Waldman2016-06-12T21:51:00ZLifeA Brief, Inglorious History of “Not Politicizing Tragedy”241160612001orlando shootingKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/12/the_orlando_shootings_and_politicizing_tragedy.htmlfalsefalsefalseA brief, inglorious history of “not politicizing tragedy”:Crying “politicization” is itself politicization—a way to advance whatever slate of politics favors the status quo.Reuters/Joshua RobertsPresident Barack Obama speaks about the Orlando, Florida, mass shooting—the deadliest in U.S. history—at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Sunday.King Lear: The Anti-Vagina Monologues&nbsp;http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/09/the_vagina_shaming_language_in_shakespeare_s_king_lear.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/the-vagina-shaming-monologues-of-king-lear/">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.&nbsp;</em></p>
<p>Many extol&nbsp;<em>King Lear</em>&nbsp;as Shakespeare’s greatest play. Some even vaunt it as the very height of the Western canon. For their claims, they point, inter alia, to the strength of the tragedy’s language. Take the mad&nbsp;monarch as he roves the wild heath: “Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!…Singe my white head!” (3.2.1-6). Or the broken father when he cradles his deceased daughter: “Thou’lt come no more,/ Never, never, never, never, never!” (5.3.306-07). The Bard’s language plunges us into the depths of Lear’s despair.</p>
<p>But&nbsp;<em>King Lear&nbsp;</em>doesn’t just feature some of Shakespeare’s strongest language. It also showcases some of his, well,&nbsp;<em>strongest</em>&nbsp;language. And when we give it a closer look, much of it is truly below the belt.&nbsp;<a href="http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/kinglear/kinglearps.html">Recall</a>&nbsp;that King Lear descends into madness as he feels each of his three daughters rejects him, to put it simplistically. When his eldest, Goneril, objects to some of his post-regnal demands, Lear isn’t just indignant: He’s downright wrathful. Consider this tirade:</p>
<blockquote>
Hear, Nature, hear! dear goddess, hear!
<br /> Suspend they purpose, if thou didst intend
<br /> To make this creature fruitful!
<br /> Into her womb convey sterility!
<br /> Dry up in her the organs of increase;
<br /> And from her derogate body never spring
<br /> A babe to honor her! If she must teem,
<br /> Create her child of spleen, that it may live
<br /> And be a thwart, disnatured torment to her!
<br /> Let it stamp wrinkles in her brow of youth;
<br /> With cadent tears fret channels in her cheeks;
<br /> Turn all her mother’s pains and benefits
<br /> To laughter and contempt, that she may feel
<br /> How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is
<br /> To have a thankless child! Away, away! (1.4.252)
</blockquote>
<p>Lear’s imprecations are personal. He curses her as a woman, as a mother. But they are also intensely physical, willing her barrenness, deterioration, and suffering.</p>
<p>“Strike her young bones,/ You taking airs, with lameness!” the raging father continues (2.4.156-57). “Infect her beauty,/ You fen-sucked fogs…!” (2.4.160-61) He wishes death and decay for her body. “Thou art a boil,/ A plague-sore, an embossed carbuncle,/ In my corrupted blood” (2.4.218-20). He treats his own flesh&nbsp;and blood as a disease.</p>
<p>Lear is revulsed by the female form. It threatens the aged ruler’s&nbsp;own waning&nbsp;virility, taunting his own “every inch” as a king (4.6.105).&nbsp;And it’s the vagina he most fears and loathes. Later in the play, Lear excuses the Earl&nbsp;of Gloucester’s adultery. Because women. Their sexuality is diabolical:</p>
<blockquote>
Down from the waist they are Centaurs,
<br /> Though women all above.
<br /> But to the girdle do the gods inherit.
<br /> Beneath is all the fiends’; there’s hell, there’s darkness,
<br /> There’s the sulphurous pit, burning, scalding,
<br /> Stench, consumption! Fie, fie, fie! Pah! pah! (4.6.121-26)
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, for Lear, “hell” is a smelly vagina. (You don’t need me to mansplain the image.)</p>
<p>Now, we’re familiar with the taboos of body parts and bodily functions in English swearing. We berate jerks as&nbsp;<em>assholes&nbsp;</em>or&nbsp;<em>dicks.</em>&nbsp;We denigrate women—or effeminate men—as&nbsp;<em>cunts&nbsp;</em>or&nbsp;<em>pussies</em>. We exclaim&nbsp;<em>Balls</em>! or&nbsp;<em>Shit</em>! when we’re&nbsp;<em>pissed</em>. But with Lear’s vaginal “hell,” Shakespeare manages an unholy trinity of profanity, folding taboos of the sacred, sex, and the body all into one. This&nbsp;<a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=2XtWDhgljvkC&amp;pg=PA660&amp;lpg=PA660&amp;dq=hell+slang+vagina+shakespeare&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=SbWIrYX0cK&amp;sig=Smlk7aV-fs0zpBYzYJ-Cr4TobIg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjJwcaP45XNAhVHIMAKHTyVAV0Q6AEINzAE#v=onepage&amp;q=hell%20slang%20vagina%20shakespeare&amp;f=false">Elizabethan epithet</a>&nbsp;has antecedents elsewhere in Renaissance literature: Earlier, Boccaccio figures a phallic devil in a hellish vagina in his&nbsp;<em>Decameron</em>, for instance. And&nbsp;<em>pit</em>,&nbsp;<em>ditch</em>, and&nbsp;<em>valley&nbsp;</em>join&nbsp;<em>hell</em> as vulval vulgarities.</p>
<p>But what’s shocking for the modern reader—and what’s consistent with&nbsp;<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2016/05/benjamin_bergen_on_profanity_and_the_brain.html">current linguistic trends</a>—is not these traditional taboos of the sacred, sex, and the body. It’s his misogyny. It’s not any&nbsp;particular curse word, per se, but his curse&nbsp;of particular&nbsp;group of people: women. Now, literary critics have had a field day with King Lear’s indictment of women. As one <a href="https://www.pgfl.org.uk/schools/tf/Greenhill/Greenhill/English_Dept/EN_KS5_Docs/Year%2013/King%20Lear/Critical%20Essays/Dark%20and%20Vicious%20Place%20-%20Women.pdf">feminist-psychoanalytic reading</a>&nbsp;has concluded: “Lear’s fantasy of merger with Cordelia, which goes back to a child’s incestuous longing to return to the body of its mother, is ultimately a death sentence.” OK, that might seem a bit much. But for all the academic overreach,&nbsp;<em>King Lear</em>’s sexism is important. We should interrogate the politics and psychology of a play so privileged in Western literature. And we should do so through its language, including its strong language, even if, especially if, its locus of offense has shifted.</p>
<p><em>King Lear</em>&nbsp;is some strong stuff. Thank goodness the Bard breaks up Lear’s vagina-shaming with a few insults that don’t rely on any sort of F-words or C-words. Like this zinger from the Earl of Kent, who drops the Z-bomb&nbsp;on Goneril’s steward:&nbsp;“Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary letter!” (2.2.56).</p>
<p><em>Text quoted&nbsp;from&nbsp;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393931404/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Norton Shakespeare</a>&nbsp;(1997, W.W. Norton, ed. Stephen Greenblatt). For more on Shakespeare’s strong language, see my&nbsp;<a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/category/shakespeare/">previous posts</a>.</em></p>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 18:20:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/09/the_vagina_shaming_language_in_shakespeare_s_king_lear.htmlJohn Kelly2016-06-09T18:20:00ZLife<em>King Lear</em>: The Anti-Vagina Monologues&nbsp;241160609002shakespearereproductionJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/09/the_vagina_shaming_language_in_shakespeare_s_king_lear.htmlfalsefalsefalseKing Lear: The anti Vagina Monologues.King Lear is revulsed by the female form.Wikimedia Creative Commons/Guerrace01<em>Three Daughters of King Lear </em>by Gustav Pope.Irish Bards Could Kill Rats With Their Magical Poetry Powershttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/09/irish_bards_were_rat_killers_according_to_poetry_and_folklore.html
<p>There is a bizarre moment in Shakespeare’s <em>As You Like It</em> when the heroine Rosalind finds little love poems for her scattered in the woods. “I was never so berhymed,” <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=asyoulikeit&amp;Act=3&amp;Scene=2&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1283%231283">she remarks in surprise</a>, “since Pythagoras’ time that I was an Irish rat.” Huh? Things only get stranger in the <a href="http://books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=4294987062">Norton Shakespeare’s</a> footnote for the line:</p>
<blockquote>
I was never overwhelmed with rhyme since the days of the ancient Greeks, when I was an Irish rat. Alluding to Pythagoras’ doctrine of the transmigration of souls and to the popular belief in England that Irish bards were capable of rhyming rats to death.
</blockquote>
<p>Wait, Irish bards killed rats with poetry? Apparently this was a thing in Elizabethan England. Two of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, Ben Jonson and Philip Sidney, also reference these rodenticidal rhymes. In Jonson’s <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/5166/5166-h/5166-h.htm">Poetaster</a>, a character muses: “I could do worse/…Rhime them to death, as they do Irish rats/ In drumming tunes.” And Philip Sidney notes in his <a href="http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/resour/mirrors/rbear/defence.html">Defence of Poesie</a>: “I will not wish unto you … to be rimed to death as is said to be done in Ireland.” What is going on with Irish pest control?</p>
<p>Ancient Ireland revered its bards, who commanded status, power, respect, celebrity, and fear. The first-millennial Celts believed their poets could literally kill with magical satire. According to folk tradition, the poets conjured up invectives that blistered the skin of foes and sent rival poets (or stingy patrons) to their graves. <a href="http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/3CBAE4FE856E917B80256DF800494ED9?opendocument">Early Irish law</a> even criminalized satirical “crimes of the tongue” equal in offense to property theft and spousal rape.</p>
<p>But thanks to a sixth-century bard, <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XWJFAAAAMAAJ&amp;pg=PA360&amp;lpg=PA360&amp;dq=seanchan+torpest&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Iyl6bqwesD&amp;sig=unYYluxNDRYkb1_MaWsu0oJTFqw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjU1q371oTNAhXFAMAKHcc0B6EQ6AEIMTAD%23v=onepage&amp;q=seanchan%20torpest&amp;f=false">Seanchan Torpest</a>, the Irish poets’ most famous victims were mice. Lore has it that Seanchan once suspected some rodents beat him to a special meal his wife left for him. As a 19<sup>th</sup>-century Irish folk historian <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/20489774?seq=1%23page_scan_tab_contents">tells it</a>, Seanchan “vowed that he would make the mice pay for their depredations, and then he composed a metrical satire on them”:</p>
<blockquote>
Mice, though sharp their snouts,
<br /> Are not powerful in battles;
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
I will bring death on the party
<br /> For having eaten Bridget's present.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Small was the present she made us,
<br /> Its loss to her was not great,
<br /> Let her have payment from us in a poem,
<br /> Let her not refuse the poet's gratitude!
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
You mice, which are in the roof of the house,
<br /> Arise all of you, and fall down.
</blockquote>
<p>&quot;And thereupon ten mice fell dead on the floor from the roof of the house,” the account concludes. The Irish built a better mousetrap, apparently.</p>
<p>The bardic tradition persisted in Ireland through the 17<sup>th</sup> century, and superstitions about their craft lived on with it. Some literary scholars even <a href="https://books.google.ie/books?id=LLbYKoRyBzEC&amp;pg=PA97&amp;lpg=PA97&amp;dq=irish+bards+rat+rhyme&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=ha04-OC2Io&amp;sig=kaDy1b_6SKO9RqgQMUTD9G_qoks&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjziPT3qITNAhXrKsAKHVrLAWQQ6AEILzAD%23v=onepage&amp;q=irish%20bards%20rat%20rhyme&amp;f=false">spy evidence</a> of the rat-rhyming tradition in the cursing and name-calling of the country’s modern bards, William Butler Yeats and James Joyce. Shakespeare likely discovered his Irish rat from folklore imported from the English conquest of Ireland. Perhaps he even read about it in Philip Sidney’s <em>Defence of Poesie</em>, written 20 years before <em>As You Like It</em>.</p>
<p>In the Elizabethan imagination, Irish rat-rhyming no doubt confirmed stereotypes of the island as a savage, primitive, and occult wilderness: “Pray you, no more of this, ‘tis like the howling of Irish wolves against the moon,” <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=asyoulikeit&amp;Act=5&amp;Scene=2&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=2346%232346">Rosalind shushes</a> some uproar in the play. But for Shakespeare, that master conjurer, perhaps it confirmed the weird, wild, and wonderful magic of language.</p>
<p>And as for Rosalind? She didn’t fall dead from her beau’s verses like an Irish rat. She fell in love. “I can do strange things,”<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=asyoulikeit&amp;Act=5&amp;Scene=2&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=2293%232293"> she later tells him</a>. “I am a magician.” And she uses that magic of language, so venerated in Ireland’s primeval versifiers, to orchestrate their marriage.</p>Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/09/irish_bards_were_rat_killers_according_to_poetry_and_folklore.htmlJohn Kelly2016-06-09T13:00:00ZLifeIrish Bards Could Kill Rats With Their Magical Poetry Powers241160609001poetrylanguageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/09/irish_bards_were_rat_killers_according_to_poetry_and_folklore.htmlfalsefalsefalseIrish bards could kill rats with their magical poetry powers:Watch out.Sanjay Kanojia/AFP/Getty ImagesCan rhyme kill a rat?Tronc Is Bad News for Good Journalismhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/06/tronc_shows_the_dangers_of_publishers_treating_journalism_like_mere_content.html
<p>Tribune Publishing Co.—the publisher of storied newspapers including the <em>Chicago Tribune</em>, <em>L.A. Times,</em> and <em>Baltimore Sun</em>—raised eyebrows last week when it announced that effective later this month it will change its name to the dubious neologism Tronc, which ostensibly stands for “Tribune online content,” and which you’re not supposed to capitalize, though it looks unfortunate when you don’t.</p>
<p>I <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/25/content_and_its_discontents_it_s_massively_depressing_when_journalists_call.html">recently wrote</a> about the perils of journalists using the word <em>content</em> to describe their work. The <a href="http://investor.tribpub.com/investor-relations/press-releases/press-releases-details/2016/Tribune-Publishing-Announces-Corporate-Rebranding-Changes-Name-to-tronc/default.aspx">press release</a> in which Tribune Publishing announced its name change is a master class in the inverse phenomenon of publishers treating their reporters as content creators: By my count, it uses the word <em>content</em> on a grueling 11 occasions and the word <em>journalism</em> only once.</p>
<p>That choice of language is neither incidental nor cosmetic. Going forward, in the hazy verbiage of the same press release, the publisher will become a “content curation and monetization company focused on creating and distributing premium, verified content across all channels.” To do so, it will apparently “leverage innovative technology,” and use “artificial intelligence” to “better monetize” the, uh, content.</p>
<p>Some of that jargon, which got pilloried online, might have been a misfired maneuver to emulate some of Tribune Publishing’s more youthful competitors—though, to be fair, it’s <a href="http://qz.com/697558/internet-startups-cant-explain-what-they-do-because-theyre-addicted-to-meaningless-jargon/">not clear that actual startups benefit from that type of newspeak</a> either—but if it represents the company’s actual plan for the future, we should be very concerned about what it’s going to mean for its excellent roster of papers.</p>
<p>That’s because publishers use the word <em>content</em> to imply connotations of journalism without taking on any of the procedural or ethical expectations. The goal of journalism is to be accurate and as objective as possible; the goal of content, generally speaking, is to rack up page views for cheap, or perhaps to sell you something. When publishers use the latter to describe something that they previously called journalism, I always suspect they’re trying to <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/science-journalisms-identity-crisis-CSWA-NASW">dissolve the distinction</a> between the two.</p>
<p>If so, Tribune Publishing—it’ll be a couple weeks before it’s officially Tronc—would do well to consider the precedent. In 2010, <em>Forbes</em> switched much of its web presence to a “contributor network” that lets pre-approved writers publish more or less anything, but rewards them financially for web traffic. The initiative appears to have turned <em>Forbes</em>’ web presence into a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/pictures/lml45lide/10-body-language-interview-mistakes-2/#7469f415767e">bottomless cesspool of businessy listicles</a>, but it’s also led to dubious ethical behavior: Earlier this year, a British PR rep reported that when he pitched a story about one of his clients to an unnamed <em>Forbes </em>contributor, the contributor rather <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/16/forbes-contributor-pr-agency-company-profile">bluntly asked for a bribe</a>, explaining that he or she was “only paid a very small sum by <em>Forbes</em> which doesn’t stretch far.” <em>Forbes</em> promised to investigate but never followed up publicly.</p>
<p>Or they could look to the Mix, a “contributor network” that seems to be Hearst’s attempt to apply the content mill model to magazines like <em>Cosmopolitan</em>, <em>Town and Country</em>, and <em>Esquire</em>. If you sign up for the Mix, you get a daily email of sensational story topics <a href="http://jezebel.com/get-paid-100-to-share-your-darkest-personal-secrets-wi-1721825127">like</a> “Our Perfect Marriage Isn’t Real” or “I Regret My Plastic Surgery.” If you submit a story based on one of those topics, and the editors like it enough to run it on one of their magazines’ websites—there’s no guarantee, astonishingly—your meager payment will be <a href="http://jezebel.com/get-paid-100-to-share-your-darkest-personal-secrets-wi-1721825127">just $100</a>, with an unspecified bonus if the story goes viral, which sounds to me rather like a boot stamping on the face of journalism forever.</p>
<p>Tribune’s name change stands in particular contrast to another recent document that lays out a potential future for journalism. A <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2016/the-new-york-times-of-the-future-is-beginning-to-take-shape/413097/">memo</a> that <em>New York Times </em>executive editor Dean Baquet sent to the <em>Times</em> staff last month outlines an expansive vision for the paper that aims to attract digital readers with ideas that span virtual reality and a new focus on video production—but also doubles down on investigative reporting, solid storytelling, and diversity in the newsroom.</p>
<p>“Make no mistake,” Baquet wrote, “this is the only way to protect our journalistic ambitions. To do nothing, or to be timid in imagining the future, would mean being left behind.”</p>
<p>Baquet uses the word <em>content</em>, notably, zero times in the memo.</p>
<p>Of course, I don’t know what Tribune Publishing’s executive team actually plans to do (and <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2016/06/03/tronc-off/">according to one observer</a>, neither do they.) Maybe all that talk of content and monetization is just a way to soothe stakeholders who’ve grown skittish after Gannett’s failed takeover bid earlier this year.</p>
<p>If they do have a specific strategy for how to reshape their newspapers around the Tronc brand, though, I hope (in the face of all evidence to the contrary) that those plans are more in the spirit of the <em>Times </em>than <em>Forbes</em> or Hearst. The response among journalists who actually work at Tribune papers, though, has so far struck a note somewhere between resignation and despair.</p>
<p>“I don't find these Tronc jokes all that funny,” <a href="https://twitter.com/McCulloughTimes/status/738488816353218561">tweeted</a> <em>L.A. Times </em>sportswriter Andy McCullough, for example, “but maybe that's because my livelihood is potentially at stake.”</p>Mon, 06 Jun 2016 20:08:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/06/tronc_shows_the_dangers_of_publishers_treating_journalism_like_mere_content.htmlJon Christian2016-06-06T20:08:00ZLifeTronc Is Bad News for Good Journalism241160606001journalismmediaJon ChristianLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/06/tronc_shows_the_dangers_of_publishers_treating_journalism_like_mere_content.htmlfalsefalsefalseTronc is bad news for good journalism:What is a tronc?Scott Olson/Getty ImagesThe majestic Chicago Tronc building“I Done Handcuffed Lightning”: The Exuberant Spoken-Word Poetry of Muhammad Ali&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/04/for_muhammad_ali_dead_at_74_speaking_and_boxing_were_a_one_two_punch.html
<p>Muhammad Ali, who died Friday at 74, inspired <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2016/06/the_best_stories_ever_written_about_muhammad_ali.html">glorious prose</a> from a murderer’s row of marquee writers: Norman Mailer, Robert Lipsyte, and David Remnick, not to mention a generation of hip-hop artists. “He had been a splendidly plumed bird who wrote on the wind a singular kind of poetry of the body,” rhapsodized sports journalist Mark Kram in 1975. In 2006, ad guru George Lois gathered the mantling colors of the fighter’s verbal ephemera into <em>Ali Rap</em>, a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20ali-rap.html?_r=0">book</a> in which he proclaimed the boxer “the first heavyweight champion of rap.” Who could argue? With quicksilver rhyming dexterity and the braggadocio of a Homeric hero, Ali spoke the language of Compton long before Kendrick Lamar resurrected his <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/04/sport/best-quotes-muhammad-ali/index.html?eref=rss_latest">floating butterfly</a> as a symbol of black creative expression.</p>
<p>Boxing and talking were Ali’s one-two punch. About six months before his career skyrocketed with a world championship title—and before he converted to Islam and dropped his “slave name” Cassius Clay—he released an album of spoken word poetry, 1963’s <em><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixvucbi1Vnw">I Am the Greatest</a>. </em>(His co-composer was the humorist Gary Belkin.) Featuring couplets like “Here I predict Mr. Liston’s dismemberment,/ I’ll hit him so hard, he’ll wonder where October and November went,” the record showcased Ali’s wit, whimsy, and irrepressible ego. The poet Marianne Moore penned the liner notes, observing, delightfully: “He fights and he writes. Is there something I have missed? He is a smiling pugilist.”</p>
<p><em>He fights and he writes.</em> Moore’s chiming summary reminds me of a quote from Ali’s mother, Odessa, who <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-outsized-life-of-muhammad-ali">once told</a> Remnick:</p>
<blockquote>
He was always a talker. He tried to talk so hard when he was a baby. He used to jabber so, you know? And people’d laugh and he’d shake his face and jabber so fast. I don’t see how anybody could talk so fast, just like lightning.&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<p>Lightning was a recurring motif for Ali—in the ring, he <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejE-Do9PeJw">boasted</a>, “I done handcuffed lightning, thrown thunder in jail.” He didn’t just jabber; he <em>jabbed</em>. An athlete and a poet, he honed two modes of expression—physical and verbal—and applied to each a governing aesthetic defined by velocity and grace. Even in high school, Ali would preface his matches with a cocky couplet: “This guy must be done/ I’ll stop him in one.”</p>
<p>I’m not surprised that Ali charmed Moore, whose poetry reflects many of the same characteristics he displayed in competition: precision, delicacy, beauty, and speed. He was a Marianne Moore poem brought to life. “Neatness of finish!” she evangelized in “<a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/marianne-moore/an-octopus/">An Octopus</a>.” Her <a href="https://twitter.com/narrative/status/294139210368184321">liner notes</a> praise up-and-comer Clay as “neat, spruce; debonair with manicure.”</p>
<p>When Ali first arrived on the boxing scene, he bemused audiences with his <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2016/06/the_eccentric_genius_of_muhammad_ali_s_boxing_style.html">unconventional style</a>—a distinct, dancelike mix of “circling, shuffling, hopping, dipping, ducking, feinting, jitterbugging.” The journalist A.J. Liebling hedged, “He was good to watch, but seemed to make only glancing contact.” <em>Glancing contact</em> is a perfect description for how Moore’s poetry relates to the world: She blended visual perceptiveness and fine-grained observation with a love of oddity, indirection, idiosyncrasy. She wrote poems about creatures—snails, pangolins, reindeer—whose glowing eccentricities became metaphors for individual artistic styles. It’s not hard to imagine Clay, the butterfly-bee, the “mouse” who could “outrun a horse,” as a Moore-ian invention, especially in the context of his own awareness of himself as spectacle. “Fighters are just brutes that come to entertain the rich white people,” Ali said in 1970, reflecting painfully on his status as a racialized wonder. “Beat up on each other and break each other’s noses, and bleed, and show off like two little monkeys for the crowd.”</p>
<p>But what about Ali’s linguistic pageantry, the words he used to talk about himself? As John Capouya recounted in <a href="http://www.si.com/vault/2005/12/12/8364188/king-strut">a 2005 <em>Sports Illustrated </em>profile</a>, he partially owed his “approach to flamboyant self-promotion” (as well as his interest in aesthetics) to the wrestler Gorgeous George Wagner. The 19-year-old Cassius Clay met Wagner in a locker room after the ebullient 46-year-old star had defeated his rival Freddie Blassie. “A lot of people will pay to see someone shut your mouth,” Wagner advised the future champion, explaining his own vow to “crawl across the ring and cut my hair off” if somehow Blassie beat him. “So keep on bragging, keep on sassing and always be outrageous.” (“I said, ‘This is a goooood idea!’ ” Ali told Capouya.) &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>You hear Gorgeous George in Ali’s cheerful bombastic self-mythologizing. (“Sooo pretty!” the elderly boxer marveled to Remnick, watching videos of himself fighting as a young man). Leibling called him “Mr. Swellhead Bigmouth Poet”; others referred to him as “Gaseous Cassius.” On June 4, 1975, Ali treated a class of freshly minted Harvard University grads to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lines_on_the_Antiquity_of_Microbes">one of the shortest verses ever drafted</a>, an ode to his greatness that reads, in its entirety: “Me? Whee!” Some of his other greatest hits include: “If you even dream of beating me, you’d better wake up and apologize” and “I’m so mean, I make medicine sick.”</p>
<p>As for “float like a butterfly, sting like a bee,” that iconic pair of similes reportedly came courtesy of Ali’s friend and assistant trainer Drew “Bundini” Brown (who copyrighted the lines). Brown joined the Greatest’s entourage at the recommendation of Sugar Ray Robinson: “I saw Muhammad on television reciting poetry in Greenwich Village … he needed somebody to watch over him, somebody to keep him happy and relaxed. I had just the guy.” The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/29/sports/sports-of-the-times-float-like-a-bundini.html">writer of Brown’s obituary</a> didn’t specify which poets Ali invoked on the way to meeting a future soul mate—was it Gwendolyn Brooks, whose “<a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/we-real-cool">We Real Cool</a>” ripples beneath boasts like “I done handcuffed lightning”? Was it his old collaborator Marianne Moore? Either way, word and act, style and movement, fused beautifully in the life of the world’s best boxer. As both poet and athlete, Ali was more than gorgeous—he was a knockout.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/topics/m/muhammad_ali.html"><strong><em>Read more Slate coverage of Muhammad Ali.</em></strong></a></p>Sat, 04 Jun 2016 21:59:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/04/for_muhammad_ali_dead_at_74_speaking_and_boxing_were_a_one_two_punch.htmlKaty Waldman2016-06-04T21:59:00ZLife“I Done Handcuffed Lightning”: The Exuberant Spoken-Word Poetry of Muhammad Ali&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;241160604001muhammad aliKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/04/for_muhammad_ali_dead_at_74_speaking_and_boxing_were_a_one_two_punch.htmlfalsefalsefalse“I done handcuffed lightning” : The exuberant spoken-word poetry of Muhammad Ali.Boxing and talking were Ali’s one-two punch.Pix Inc./Life Images Collection/Getty ImagesMuhammad Ali, 1963.(((The Jewish Cowbell))): Unpacking a Gross New Meme From the Alt-Righthttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/02/the_jewish_cowbell_the_meaning_of_those_double_parentheses_beloved_by_trump.html
<p>From every internet niche comes a native shorthand, so we should not be surprised that includes putrescent swampy niches from the putrescent swamps of Twitter. <em>New York Times</em> reporter Jonathan Weisman shared his<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/the-nazi-tweets-of-trump-god-emperor.html?smid=tw-share&amp;_r=0"> war story </a>in the paper:&nbsp;</p>
<blockquote>
The first tweet arrived as cryptic code, a signal to the army of the “alt-right” that I barely knew existed: “Hello ((Weisman)).” @CyberTrump was responding to my recent tweet of an essay by Robert Kagan on the emergence of fascism in the United States.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“Care to explain?” I answered, intuiting that my last name in brackets denoted my Jewish faith.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“What, ho, the vaunted Ashkenazi intelligence, hahaha!” CyberTrump came back. “It’s a dog whistle, fool. Belling the cat for my fellow goyim.”
</blockquote>
<p>Truly though ((those brackets)) are not ultrasonically subtle enough to qualify as a dog whistle and not heroic enough to conjure Aesop’s image of belling the cat. Let’s call the construction the Jewish cowbell. The cowbell is a series of parentheses, anywhere from one to three, around the name of a Jewish person, to signal Jewishness. It proliferates in the dank margins of online conservative discourse, where anti-Semitism glows like a weird mold; tweets exhort Jews to follow trails of dollar bills into ovens and warn readers, via photographs of goose-stepping Nazis, not to “piss off the white boys.”</p>
<p>That critiques, or even mentions, of Trump can incite brain-atomizing gusts of anti-Semitism from certain corners of the web is, sadly, not news. Just ask writer Julia Ioffe, who weathered <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/28/julia-ioffe-journalist-melania-trump-antisemitic-abuse">Holocaust-themed abuse</a> after she profiled Melania Trump for <em>GQ</em>, or journalist Bethany Mandel, who felt so intimidated by the violent threats of the #MAGA, or Make America Great Again, crowd (she was called a “slimy Jewess” and told she “deserved the oven”) that she went out and <a href="http://forward.com/opinion/336159/my-trump-tweets-earned-me-so-many-anti-semitic-haters-that-i-bought-a-gun/">purchased a gun</a>. But such vituperation often begins with this curious Jewish cowbell, a typographical indicator of ethnicity that hearkens back to the starred armbands Jews were forced to wear in Nazi Germany. Looking at these parentheses is a surreal experience: Not only do they mark out Jews, but they visually contain them, sequestered as if in a camp or prison.</p>
<p>According to historian Sarah Werner, there are few precedents for using typography to signify particular forms of identity. In 17<sup>th</sup>-century multilingual dictionaries, various typefaces could connote various tongues: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackletter">blackletter</a> for Flemish and English; roman for Italian, Latin, and German; and italic for French and Spanish. Though most English texts switched from blackletter to roman in the mid-1500s, works that strongly evoked a shared English culture continued to be printed in blackletter, including the great national bibles, such as 1611’s King James version.</p>
<p>Leaving aside clandestine methods for <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/05/john_roberts_s_court_sees_racism_in_foster_v_chatman.html">designating the race of potential jurors</a>, the closest many texts come to telegraphing ethnic or regional background is dialect. Mark Twain shaped the language of black characters to mirror “Negro speech” (or his perception of it) in <em>Huckleberry Finn</em>; so too William Faulkner in his fiction and George Gershwin in <em>Porgy and Bess</em>; novels by Paul Laurence Dunbar and Zora Neale Hurston allowed men and women to voice the vernacular music of their communities.&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>Mic </em>has a <a href="https://mic.com/articles/144228/echoes-exposed-the-secret-symbol-neo-nazis-use-to-target-jews-online#.EvSSWgrzK">good expos&eacute;</a> on the origins of the cowbell: Known to alt-right activists as an “echo,” the symbol sprang from a hardcore conservative podcast named the<em> Daily Shoah</em>. The <em>Shoah </em>“featured a segment called ‘Merchant Minute’ that gave Jewish names a cartoonish ‘echo’ sound effect when uttered,” Cooper Fleishman and Anthony Smith explain. When they reached out to the podcast editors for more information, they were told that the meme also functioned as a critique of “Jewish power”:</p>
<blockquote>
<em>&quot;The inner parenthesis represent the Jews' subversion of the home [and] destruction of the family through mass-media degeneracy. The next [parenthesis] represents the destruction of the nation through mass immigration, and the outer [parenthesis] represents international Jewry and world Zionism.&quot;</em>
</blockquote>
<p>After just a few hours of research for this post, I cannot begin to describe the vile Freudian effluvium that pours out of Trump-adjacent spigots of the internet. Think cartoons of purple-lipped black guys spilling McDonald’s drinks across the desks of white employers (to support Trump’s scorn for affirmative action) and Jews vacuuming up money through their fantastical schnozes. Men who criticize Trump can expect to find themselves starring in rococo gay sex scenarios: id-soaked fantasias of BBCs (big black cocks), cucks (cuckolds), “receptive homosexuals,” and “romping groups” of “alpha males” mingling with “subversive degenerates.” Women face gross comments on their bodies, accusations of mental instability, solicitude about their “meds,” and social Darwinist speculation on their corrupted “bloodlines.” The craziness highlights posters’ fluency in internet porn even as it foregrounds intense erotic and racial anxiety. And all this is preceded, often, by a ((symbol)) whose clarion call-to-viciousness evokes the clang at the start of a boxing match.</p>
<p>“Hey, look at this fetid thing!” journalism has its limits, but its value is unmistakable in the Age of Trump, and this particular fetid thing should make us step back and reflect. The Republican nominee for president is riding a wave of support that looks for all the world like <a href="https://twitter.com/melpomenethree1/status/738111127674986496">Hitler nostalgia</a>. As a casually Jewish woman without the financial means to get my horns removed or my cloven hooves separated into toes, I am dismayed. Cowbell bigots may represent a tiny fraction of Trump followers, but they’re too toxic to be written off as a mere parenthetical.</p>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 19:28:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/02/the_jewish_cowbell_the_meaning_of_those_double_parentheses_beloved_by_trump.htmlKaty Waldman2016-06-02T19:28:00ZLife(((The Jewish Cowbell))): Unpacking a Gross New Meme From the Alt-Right241160602002donald trumpanti-semitismKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/02/the_jewish_cowbell_the_meaning_of_those_double_parentheses_beloved_by_trump.htmlfalsefalsefalseUnpacking a gross new meme from the alt-right: The "Jewish cowbell"Seriously, this is a thing.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesThat critiques, or even mentions, of Trump can incite brain-atomizing gusts of anti-Semitism from certain corners of the web is, sadly, not news.&nbsp;Lovingly, Stridently, Unapologeticallyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/02/abolish_the_adverb_you_seriously_must_be_joking.html
<p>Who will be the Lorax for the adverb, that most-maligned part of speech? Who will speak on the adverb’s behalf? For once again, it would seem, it is under attack. Christian Lorentzen’s <em>New York </em>magazine piece, <a href="http://www.vulture.com/2016/05/could-we-just-lose-the-adverb-already.html">“Could We Just Lose Adverbs (Already)”</a> is not quite the diatribe its title (parenthetically) promises: Lorentzen is more nuanced and reflective than to call for an outright ban, and by essay’s end, he has arrived at reluctant acceptance. But even then, Lorentzen maintains “their power is best spent in small doses”; he expounds on ways to prune adverbs and other “needless” words from one’s writing. It reminded me once again that we desperately lack a full-throated defense of this runt of the grammatical litter. We need an outright celebration of adverbs, and it is that celebration that I offer—stridently, boisterously, unapologetically.</p>
<p>The hatred of adverbs amongst writers, and specifically teachers of creative writing, has become so commonplace, so unquestioned, and so unthinking, that it ranks only with “show don’t tell” as the most ubiquitous clich&eacute; in writing advice. One finds it everywhere. When Lorentzen comments that an “excess of adverbs in prose signals a general lack of vividness in verbs and adjectives,” he’s only parroting the same advice writers have been doling out for years. One finds it throughout William Zinsser’s oft-taught <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060891548/?tag=slatmaga-20">On&nbsp;Writing Well</a> </em>(first published in 1976),<em> </em>which advises that “the secret to good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components.* Every word that serves no function, every long word that could be a short word, every adverb that carries the same meaning that’s already in the verb, every passive construction that leaves the reader unsure of who is doing what—these are the thousand and one adulterants that weaken the strength of a sentence.”</p>
<p>Zinsser here basically follows his forebears, William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, whose <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/020530902X/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Elements of Style</a> </em>(published first by Strunk in 1918; expanded in 1959 by White) loudly proclaims: “Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.” The word <em>adverb</em> doesn’t cross the page, but Lorentzen is correct that “they’re talking about adverbs without their having to say it.”</p>
<p>Henry James once wrote of adverbs, “I adore them; they are the only qualifications I really much respect,” but his is most definitely a minority report. To Graham Greene, adverbs were “beastly.” Elmore Leonard thought their use constituted a “mortal sin.” Italian futurist F.T. Marinetti called for their abolition, complaining they give sentences a “tedious unity of tone” (though, to be fair, Marinetti also called for abolishing adjectives, punctuation, conjugated verbs, and syntax in general). Even Hollywood, the last refuge of all manner of clich&eacute;d and hackneyed writing, understands the adverb to be verboten: in 1995’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000N5W5NC/?tag=slatmaga-20">Outbreak</a>, </em>Kevin Spacey’s character, during the height of a public health crisis, takes time out to dismiss the adverb as “a lazy tool of a weak mind.”</p>
<p>And then there’s Stephen King. “<em>The adverb is not your friend,</em>” he writes in 2000’s <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439156816/?tag=slatmaga-20">On Writing</a>, </em>italicizing the sentence to show he’s very, extremely, <em>deadly</em> serious about adverbs. King’s advice seems to have taken root with many writing students today; of all the adverb admonishments, I find King’s to be the most likely to be bandied back and forth by my students in writing workshops, students who’ve taken these words to heart, no doubt in part because of King’s sincerity. “I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs,” he concludes, “and I will shout it to from the rooftops.” How could you ignore such a bellowed proclamation?</p>
<p>It should come as no surprise that the writers who most strenuously cavil against adverbs are themselves habitual users of them. Here is a lovely passage from E. B. White’s famous “Once More to the Lake”: “We stared silently at the tips of our rods, at the dragonflies that came and went. I lowered the tip of mine into the water, tentatively, pensively dislodging the fly, which darted two feet away, poised, darted two feet back, and came to rest again a little farther up the rod.”*</p>
<p>And here is another great passage, this one from Zinsser’s <em>American Places: A Writer’s Pilgrimage to 16 of This Country’s Most Visited and Cherished Sites</em>, where Zinsser finally beholds Mt. Rushmore for the first time. “What I finally made out were four dirty gray faces that looked like postage stamps side by side, their features as flattened as the statues on Easter Island, hardly separable from the rest of the mountain. They didn’t even look particularly big. ‘Is <em>that </em>all?’ I said to myself—or, more probably, to Borglum [Gutzon Borglum, Mt. Rushmore’s sculptor].”</p>
<p>And here is King from his novel <em>11/22/63</em>, which made the <em>New York Times’ </em>“The Ten Best Books of 2011” list, where the English teacher protagonist Jake Epping*, lamenting the poor writing of his students, recalls an essay by a former student: “It was certainly better than the stuff I was currently reading. The spelling in the honors essays was mostly correct, and the diction was clear (although my cautious college-bound don’t-take-a-chancers had an irritating tendency to fall back on the passive voice), but the writing was pallid. Boring.” Even in a passage ostensibly decrying terrible writing, it seems, a stray “certainly,” an erstwhile “currently,” and even a weak-willed “mostly” have all crept in.</p>
<p>Why do these writers—hidden friends to adverbs that they are—decry the modifier so brazenly? What are they trying so fiercely to deny within themselves? For one, haranguing against the adverb is a cheap, easy piece of advice, one that offers a mechanical solution to the abstract question of good writing. Adverb hatred attacks a symptom, rather than a cause. Creative writing teachers tell beginning writers to avoid adverbs because, on some level, bad imitations of Hemingway are easier to slog through than bad imitations of Proust.</p>
<p>A few years ago, <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/8c60799c-24e2-11e0-895d-00144feab49a.html">Adam Haslett lamented</a> that bans on parts of speech lead inevitably not to better writing, but to a uniformity in bad writing. “Too often the instruction to ‘omit needless words’ (Rule 17) leads young writers to be cautious and dull,” he notes; “minimalist style becomes minimalist thought, and that is a problem.” Writers who militate against adverbs have given up on the pleasures of writing; they have been beaten down by a few examples of bad writing, and, wary of dealing with more, they advocate that all of us adopt the same remedy: writing denuded of anything unusual, stripped down to its barest elements so as to be the least likely to offend.</p>
<p>But there’s something lurking deeper beneath this adverb hatred, something more primal that goes beyond simply a desire to write better. “Again and again in careless writing,” Zinsser tells us, “strong verbs are weakened by redundant adverbs.” And it goes without saying that one’s writing must be “strong,” must never be “weak.” Good writing is, per Strunk and White, “vigorous,” which is to say it’s manly, aggressive, assertive. It’s no wonder that Hemingway, Mailer, and Carver are often cited for their courageous, hard denial of adverbing, since they are our go-to men for strong, virile prose.</p>
<p>Adverbs, it seems, dilute the potency of one’s seminal thoughts. “Adverbs,” King writes, “like the passive voice, seem to have been created with the timid writer in mind.” He likens adverb users to &nbsp;“little boys wearing shoe polish mustaches and little girls clumping around in Mommy’s high heels.” Adverbs, the last refuge of squeaky-voiced children, are what stands between the writer and<em> </em>adulthood. “When I was a child, I spoke as a child,” these men all say, “but when I became a man, I put away childish adverbs.”</p>
<p>In addition to being childish and vaguely feminine, adverbs waste the reader’s time, and good writing is never wasteful. Good writing gets to the point; it does not use two words when one will suffice. It is not, in Zinsser’s words, “cluttered” (adverbs, like cats and <em>National Geographic </em>back issues, are the province of hoarders). Good writing is efficient in the sense that a computer or a downsized corporation is efficient, and in advice like this it’s easy to detect the extent to which a capitalist business ethos has infiltrated writing advice. As <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/12/strunk-and-white-s-macho-grammar-club0.html">Mark Dery explains</a> in an article for the<em> Daily Beast</em>: the golden rule, “omit needless words,” “complements the ‘less is more’ ethos of the Bauhaus school of design, another expression of Machine Age Modernism. Optimized for peak efficiency, Strunk’s is a prose for an age of standardized widgets and standardized workers, when the efficiency gospel of F.W. Taylor, father of ‘scientific management,’ was percolating out of the workplace, into the culture at large.” Adverbs, weak and prepubescent, are execrable precisely because they’re an affront to the very masculine underpinnings of capitalism. They should be avoided, Zinsser argues repeatedly, unless “they do necessary work.” Adverbs: the welfare queens of the sentence.</p>
<p>I, for one, am for sloppy writing, writing which uses two words when one will do. I’m for writing that isn’t always vigorous, for writing that sometimes is fey and effeminate. I’m for writing which is wasteful both of time and of ink.</p>
<p>Reader, I want to waste your time. Needlessly, deliriously, unrepentantly.</p>
<p>* * *</p>
<p>Anne Carson writes of adjectives that they “are in charge of attaching everything in the world to its place in particularity.” Adverbs, then, curtail and refine—but in doing so they can pick out the unexpected resonances, the hidden valences in the words they modify. An adverb, at its best, offers a sudden shift in direction or tone, all the more unexpected considering the adverb’s seemingly slavish subservience to the word it modifies.</p>
<p>Adverb detractors tend to focus on the straw man example of a weak verb modified by an adverb: don’t write “he said indistinctly,” write “he mumbled” instead. It’s true that this is not great writing, and in many cases the replacement verb is indeed better. But where adverbs get interesting is when they modify an already strong verb. The adverb in such a situation allows for far more complexity: it can contradict the verb, alter it subtly or dramatically, change the meaning of the sentence in some irrevocable manner, or provide a puzzle of sorts for the reader, giving her pause. If “he walked slowly” is bad, and “he ambled” is good, then “he ambled purposefully” is great—a kind of precision that emerges only when words are at cross purposes with one another.</p>
<p>One great use of an adverb comes from Ben Ehrenreich’s novel <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0872865185/?tag=slatmaga-20">Ether</a>, </em>wherein the author describes the actions of a half-asleep homeless man dozing under a bridge: “He pawed at his groin and farted sweetly.” It is the sweetness of the “sweetly,” the incongruous note in a world of grime, that captures the imagination. Or take Djuna Barnes, who in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0811216713/?tag=slatmaga-20">Nightwood</a> </em>says of the protagonist Robin’s lover that her “head rocked timidly and aggressively at the same moment, giving her a slightly shuddering and expectant rhythm,” and that she is “one of the most unimportantly wicked women of her time.” Just as the sentence gets steamrolling toward its end, it’s often the adverb that gums the works, monkeywrenching the meaning and steering us toward some otherwise missed valence.</p>
<p>A good adverb stages a slight rebellion, flipping the script of the verb. Michiko Kakutani, Arthur Plotnik noted, favors such adverbs, describing books with such phrases as “eye-crossingly voluminous,” “casually authoritative,” and “engagingly demented.” Adverbs can also turn against themselves, canceling one another out, as in Eileen Myles’ <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1935928031/?tag=slatmaga-20">Inferno</a>: </em>“The poet’s life is just so much crenellated waste, nights and days, whipping swiftly or laboriously past the cinematic window.”</p>
<p>Deployed skillfully, the adverb backstabs lovingly, subverts daintily, insurrects gallantly.</p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, Henry James is a master of adverb use, and even writers who eschew his languorous, labyrinthine style have something to learn from his adverbs. Describing Daisy Miller through the eyes of Winterbourne, James calls her neither “pretty” nor “beautiful,” but “strikingly, admirably pretty”—offering a precision unavailable in standard descriptors of beauty. When he describes Strether in the opening of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0141441321/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Ambassadors</a> </em>as keeping to himself, “independently, unsociably, alone, without encounter or relapse and by mere quiet evasion,” each adverb comes at that “alone” from a different perspective, as though the narrator is turning over in his mind each possible meaning of loneliness. To demand of writing like this that it lose its “clutter” is to completely miss the richness offered in such a careful layering of meaning.</p>
<p>The other underappreciated use of adverbs is as a rhythmic pause or a break in the flow of a thought. A pause, a gathering of a moment—an adverb sometimes achieves these, working as the held note. When James runs together a series of seemingly unnecessary adverbs as he does in <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0141441267/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Portrait of a Lady</a> </em>(“At present, obviously, nevertheless, he was not likely to displace himself; his journeys were over and he was taking the rest that precedes the great rest.”), he does so not to convey information, but rather to mimic that rest preceding great rest, reminding us that even prose is music.</p>
<p>An adverb is a great way to hold one’s breath, to build tension, to hang on a thought—the adverb is like the backing band vamping while the singer struts onto the stage. E.B. White writes of “staring silently” not because he believes it’s possible to “stare noisily,” but rather to hold, for a beat, the reader’s mind on the act of staring. When he writes of tentatively and pensively dislodging that dragonfly, those adverbs are important not really because of what they mean, but because they work primarily to draw out the time of that moment, to render it delicate, to hold onto the sweetness of the gesture that would get loss with only the bare verb “dislodge.”</p>
<p>Loving adverbs in this way, in other words, is less about the meaning of the words and more about the space in time they hold, the moment of breath they offer the reader, the space they carve out against the din and the noise of everything else.</p>
<p>In both cases, what’s striking about adverbs is the way in which they resist a treatment of language that sees it as a bare conveyance of information. We’re in a data-driven age, and that data drives us to force language into its most easily assimilated form. New apps arrive seemingly every week with the promise of increasing one’s reading rate and comprehension. Sites like Medium render articles in terms of the minutes it will take to consume them and are calculated on a formula that treats every word as having the same temporal value. The presumption here, of course, is that no sentence need be re-read, no allusion need be looked up, no thought need be untangled.</p>
<p>The goal, it would seem, is to render language so transparent that its meaning can be absorbed directly and instantaneously. We want our language the way techies want their Soylent: bland packets of protein and nutrients, without taste or individuality.</p>
<p>We must continually seek out and praise writing that resists this tendency, that asserts itself as more than just information to be read and consumed as quickly as possible. To encourage young writers to avoid certain parts of speech is to discourage them from experimentation, from testing the limits of expression. It is to dull them inside before they’ve had a chance to begin. Writers like Hemingway and Carver made a choice to write without adverbs—good for them. Now go out and make your own choices.</p>
<p><em><strong>*Correction, June 3, 2016:</strong> This post originally misstated the title of William Zinsser's writing manual, On Writing Well, and of E.B. White's short story, &quot;Once More to the Lake.&quot; It also misidentified the protagonist of a Stephen King novel, who is Epping, not Eppling.&nbsp;</em></p>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 17:59:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/02/abolish_the_adverb_you_seriously_must_be_joking.htmlColin Dickey2016-06-02T17:59:00ZLifeAdverbs Are Overwhelmingly, Indisputably the Best Part of Speech241160602001languagewritingColin DickeyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/02/abolish_the_adverb_you_seriously_must_be_joking.htmlfalsefalsefalseAdverbs are overwhelmingly, indisputably the best part of speech.Abolish the adverb? You seriously must be kidding.Super GrammarThe Hollywood Studio Proudly Named for an Arabic Swear Wordhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/01/hollywood_recording_studio_with_inappropriate_name.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/lick-my-ass-enterprises/">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.&nbsp;</em></p>
<p>This is the story of a bygone Hollywood recording studio whose name was an acronym for a sweary Arabic-Yiddish (and also maybe Turkish) epithet. I learned about it in a comment on a blog post about a Korean-English translator.</p>
<p>Needless to say, I love the internet.</p>
<p>The post, “<a href="http://languagehat.com/why-she-learned-korean/">Why She Learned Korean</a>,” appeared in Language Hat, Steve Dodson’s excellent and often scholarly blog about language. About halfway into the comment section, the conversation turned to acronyms, and a commenter identified only as “Y” offered this, a propos of nothing in the original post but extremely interesting to me (and to you Strong Languagers, I’ll bet):</p>
<blockquote>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTG_Studios">TTG Studios</a>, who recorded several seminal albums of the 1960s, got their name from the Arabic-Yiddish compound&nbsp;
<em>Tilḥas Ṭīzī Gesheftn,</em>&nbsp;‘Lick my Ass Enterprises’, which had been used as a code/inside joke in the anti-British Jewish underground in Palestine.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The other interpretations of the name, “Two Terrible Guys” or “Two Talented Gentlemen”, are apocryphal.
</blockquote>
<p>This turns out to be a highly plausible argument, for reasons I’ll get into in a minute. But what about the “apocryphal” stories?</p>
<p>The link in Y’s comment goes to a Wikipedia entry that gives three citations for the “Two Terrible Guys” interpretation, none of them a primary source. One of them, a 2010 article in <em>Analog Planet</em>, is an incomplete reprint of <a href="http://www.analogplanet.com/content/doors-and-elektra-records-sound-part-i-0#x4m7DoSPIkPYvllt.97">a 1997 <em>Analog Planet </em>article</a>—so incomplete that the name of the interview subject was lopped off. He (I assume it’s a he) is identified only by the initials “BB.” Piecing together the evidence, I surmised that BB was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Botnick">Bruce Botnick</a> (born 1945), an American audio engineer best known for his work with the Doors. He told <em>Analog Planet</em>’s Matthew Greenwald:</p>
<blockquote>
The rest of that album [the Doors’ “Waiting for the Sun”] was recorded at TTG Studios, which stood for “Two Terrible Guys” (laughs).
</blockquote>
<p>Was “BB” laughing because he knew the <em>real </em>story of what TTG stood for? BB continued:</p>
<blockquote>
They weren't terrible guys. It was Ami Hadani and Tom Hildley, the same guys who designed and built all the famous Record Plant studios. Anything&nbsp;
<em>but</em>&nbsp;two terrible guys. The cool thing about Ami was that he was a General in the Israeli Air Force, and he'd be doing a session and there'd be problems and he'd have to leave the session and go fly off to Israel, fight the war, then come back and finish a session. Weeks could go by, it was kind of funny.
</blockquote>
<p>The early history of Amnon “Ami” Hadani, who also went by Omi Hadan, is vague. After he and Tom Hidley founded TTG, at 1441 N. McCadden Place in Los Angeles—a stone’s throw from Hollywood High School—they recorded many of the era’s prominent rock musicians: the Doors, Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, Jimi Hendrix, the Monkees, Linda Ronstadt.</p>
<p>Hadani died in 2014; I was unable to find an obituary, or a birth date, but I did find&nbsp;<a href="http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/amnom-ami-hadani-legendary-radio-recorders-and-ttg-recording-and-mastering-engineer-rip.384893/">a short tribute</a>&nbsp;that audiophile and music-restoration specialist Steve Hoffman published in one of his music forums. The tribute misspells Hadani’s first name and gives the wrong location for TTG Studios, but it includes this bit of information:</p>
<blockquote>
For those of you who remember TTG Studios, TTG stood for&nbsp;Tilhas Teezee Gesheften&nbsp;a name of a group of&nbsp;
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade">Jewish Brigade</a>&nbsp;members formed immediately following WWII. Under the guise of British military activity, this group engaged in the assassination of Nazis and SS conspirators, facilitated the illegal emigration of Holocaust survivors to Israel, and smuggled weaponry for the&nbsp;
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah">Haganah</a>.
</blockquote>
<p>The Haganah was a Jewish paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine; after Israeli independence in 1948, it became the core of the Israel Defense Forces.</p>
<p>Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilhas_Tizig_Gesheften">the Israeli TTG</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
The three words that make up the phrase are Arabic [تِلحسْ طِيزي, “tilhas tizi”, “lick my ass”] and&nbsp;
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish_language">Yiddish</a>&nbsp;[געשעפטן, “gesheften”,”business”], combined to form a modern Hebrew slang expression, meaning “You-lick-my-ass business.”
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilhas_Tizig_Gesheften#cite_note-1">[1]</a>&nbsp;It has been more colloquially translated as “up your ass/g&ouml;tveren”,
<sup><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilhas_Tizig_Gesheften#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup>&nbsp;whereas [sic]&nbsp;“g&ouml;tveren” is a vulgar Turkish slang term for “queer/fag/faggot”.
</blockquote>
<p>The footnotes reference Howard Blum’s 2009 book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/006093283X/?tag=slatmaga-20"><em>The Brigade: An Epic Story of Vengeance, Salvataion, and World War II</em></a><em>. </em>“The Brigade” was the Jewish Brigade, which was formed in 1944 as a unit of the British Army and continued its activities after the war. According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade">a Wikipedia entry</a>, “Under the guise of British military activity, this group engaged in the assassination of Nazis, facilitated the illegal immigration of Holocaust survivors to Mandatory Palestine, and smuggled weaponry to the<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah" title="Haganah"></a> Haganah.” One of the Brigade’s members, Israel Carmi, “realized that it would require an army” to move refugees out of Europe, writes Blum:</p>
<blockquote>
So he invented one. And he did it with just three letters: TTG.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
TTG had the short, crisp punch of a military acronym. It sounded like the name of an army unit. But Carmi had chosen the letters from a phrase in a contrived, nonsensical portmanteau language, part Yiddish, part Arabic. The words were “
<em>tilhas tizig gesheften.</em>” Roughly – and it was meant to be rough – translated, it sneered, “Up your ass.” But only the Jews from Palestine knew that.
</blockquote>
<p>According to <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/05/27/lick-my-ass-enterprises/comment-page-1/#comment-6335">some sleuthing</a> done by Yuval Pinter, who writes the bilingual Hebrew–English linguistics blog <a href="https://blazinghyphens.wordpress.com/english/">Blazing Hyphens</a>, Hadani not only was living in Palestine during this period, he served in the Brigade himself—and so would have been intimately acquainted with the acronym.</p>
<p>Modern spoken Hebrew is a young language; the first child raised to speak only Hebrew <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/ben_yehuda.html">was born</a> in 1882. That child’s father, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, compiles <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-English-Dictionary-Ben-Yehuda/dp/0671688626">the first modern Hebrew dictionary</a>, for which he coined hundreds of new words. (“Ben-Yehuda” is to modern Hebrew lexicography what “Webster” is to American.) But there were no swear words in the lexicon: with the exception, say,&nbsp;<em>prostitute&nbsp;</em>and&nbsp;<em>bastard</em>, off-color words were absent from the Hebrew Bible or its commentaries, and the high-minded Ben-Yehuda and his prot&eacute;g&eacute;s had no place for them.</p>
<p>Still, swearers gotta swear, and so modern Israelis turned to their Arabic- and Turkish-speaking neighbors (and not infrequently to English, Russian, and Yiddish) for linguistic relief.</p>
<p>I’m still searching for the definitive lexicon of Hebrew swears. In the meantime, I can point you to this&nbsp;<a href="http://sonicinbeijing.blogspot.com/2011/06/slang-army-hebrew-klalot-curses.html">glossary of swears</a>&nbsp;used by Israeli soldiers, in which Arabic shows up a lot; and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkR0mz6bhZM">to this video tutorial from Swearport</a>, which is disappointingly mild but at least provides a Sabra (native) pronunciation.</p>Wed, 01 Jun 2016 15:21:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/01/hollywood_recording_studio_with_inappropriate_name.htmlNancy Friedman2016-06-01T15:21:00ZLifeThe Hollywood Studio Proudly Named for an Arabic Swear Word241160601001hollywoodstrong languageswearingNancy FriedmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/06/01/hollywood_recording_studio_with_inappropriate_name.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe Hollywood studio proudly named for an Arabic swear word:It's all in the name.StudioHaze68The Jimi Hendrix Experience At TTG Studios: October 1968Why You Shouldn’t Use This Ambiguous, if Not Wholly Befuddling, Constructionhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/31/don_t_use_this_ambiguous_if_not_totally_flummoxing_construction.html
<p>I predict that people commenting on this article will be dismissive, if not hostile.</p>
<p>What do I mean by that? Am I predicting that commenters will be dismissive, and possibly even hostile? Or am I predicting that commenters will be dismissive, but not to the point of being hostile?</p>
<p>I ran a Twitter poll asking the same question, with different words:</p>
<p>The statistical insignificance of Twitter polls aside, anecdotal experiences as a journalist and educator lead me to believe that if you use the “it’s X, if not Y” formula in your writing, about half of your readers will think you mean one thing and half will think you mean the exact opposite.</p>
<p>Comprehension is at stake, so this is a language problem worth correcting, unlike the perfectly fine “<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/04/05/the_real_reason_people_say_i_could_care_less.html">I could care less</a>” idiom, which almost everyone interprets the same way despite the fact that it literally means the opposite of how we use it.</p>
<p>With the “it’s X, if not Y” formula, ambiguity is built right into the word “if.” That conjunction exists to help us describe situations in which one thing might be the case, or another thing might be the case.</p>
<p>People in the “it’s X, if not Y = it’s X, but not Y” camp are presuming that you already know the answer to the question you’ve implied with your “if.” Take this example:</p>
<blockquote>
Many, if not all readers have already skipped to this article’s comment section to tell me I’m wrong.
</blockquote>
<p>My use of “if” in that sentence implies that there was — at some point — a possibility in my mind that all of you would have already skipped to the comment section before you got this far. However, there are context clues that would lead you to believe I had already considered and dismissed that possibility before writing my sentence; clues such as the unlikelihood that I would write and seek publication of words that I sincerely believed no one would read.</p>
<p>In contrast, people in the “it’s X, if not Y = it’s X, and maybe Y” camp are taking my sentence more literally; they think I’m saying there’s a possibility that all of you have already skipped to the comments, but in the event that some of you haven’t, certainly many of you have.</p>
<p>Both of these interpretations of my sentence are defensible, which means it’s a bad sentence. If two equally intelligent and informed people can come to opposite conclusions about what you mean, then it’s time to rephrase.</p>
<p>You should never write that something is “X, if not Y.” But you should feel free to say that out loud.</p>
<p>It’s easy to communicate which of these two options is your intended meaning by using inflection. However, it is impossible to render that inflection in text without using non-English characters or symbols, because the difference is tonal, not emphatic. For example, try reading this out loud implying one meaning and then the other:</p>
<blockquote>
The problem with writing nitpicking articles about language is that most of the time, if not every time, somebody will point out a language problem in your article, which damages your credibility.
</blockquote>
<p>If you wanted to communicate that something happens most of the time, but<em> </em>not every time, you’d emphasize the word “every.” If you wanted to communicate that something happens most of the time, and possibly<em> </em>every time, you’d also emphasize the word “every,” but with a different tone. In common English, we can indicate emphasis in text with <em>italics </em>or ALL CAPS, but we have nothing to indicate tonality (or do we?).</p>
<p>The solution here is simple: When dealing in text, write that things are either “X, but not Y,” or “X, and perhaps Y,” instead of “X, if not Y.”</p>
<p>I expect that one, and perhaps more of you will point out in the comments that I’m not the first person to make this argument. However, I think I am one of the first, and perhaps <em>the </em>first to do so using this many prismatic, self-referential examples. I’m nothing if not precious.</p>
<p>(Wait, does that mean I actually <em>am</em> nothing? My god, I’m vanishi—)</p>Tue, 31 May 2016 15:55:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/31/don_t_use_this_ambiguous_if_not_totally_flummoxing_construction.htmlAdam Ragusea2016-05-31T15:55:00ZLife“If Not” Is a Confusing Phrase, If Not a Completely Terrible One241160531001languageAdam RaguseaLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/31/don_t_use_this_ambiguous_if_not_totally_flummoxing_construction.htmlfalsefalsefalse"If not" is a confusing phrase, if not a completely terrible one.It's ambiguous, if not wholly befuddling.Adam RaguseaMeet Themself, Our Next Gender-Neutral Singular Pronounhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/30/meet_themself_our_next_gender_neutral_singular_pronoun.html
<p>The singular <em>they</em> is <a href="http://www.americandialect.org/2015-word-of-the-year-is-singular-they">gaining acceptance</a> as a resourceful solution to English’s lack of a gender-neutral singular pronoun. But it’s not settling in without controversy. What’ll be next? critics fear. <a href="https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/reflecting-on-the-reflexive-pronoun-themself/">Themself</a>? As in, <em>Jo went to see the movie all by themself</em>?</p>
<p>Actually, yes. We should be falling all over ourselves—or, if you’re a monarch, <em>ourself</em>. Got a problem with <em>themself</em>? You should take it up with Her Majesty.</p>
<p>Like singular <em>they</em>, the royal <em>we</em>, in which a sovereign refers to themself with &nbsp;plural pronouns, takes a curious reflexive form. <em>Ourself</em>, joins a plural <em>our</em> with a singular <em>self</em>. While unusual, <em>ourself</em> is all over Shakespeare. Take <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=macbeth&amp;Act=3&amp;Scene=1&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1044%231044">Macbeth</a>: “The sweeter welcome, we will keep ourself/ Till supper-time alone.” <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=richard2&amp;Act=1&amp;Scene=4&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=655%23655">Richard II</a> shows us the pronoun’s intensive form: “We will ourself in person to this war.” Even the heroic and eloquent <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=henry5&amp;Act=4&amp;Scene=8&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=2757%232757">Henry V</a> employs it: “It was ourself thou did abuse.”</p>
<p>Chaucer, Dickens, and Tennyson join Shakespeare to form a literary pantheon of <em>ourself</em>. John Wycliffe used <em>ourself</em> in his seminal 14th-century translation of the Bible into English. Some believe English’s majestic plural started with Henry II’s claim to divine right. When he spoke, he was also speaking for God. Hence <em>we</em>. The royal <em>we</em>, however, probably goes back to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magazine/03FOB-onlanguage-t.html">ancient Rome</a>.</p>
<p>And the construction has evolved. Journalist and author Constance Hale <a href="http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/the-royal-we?page=1">identifies several modern first-person plurals</a>. Like the political <em>we</em>: “We are taking this campaign all the way to convention.” Or the editorial <em>we</em>, employed representatively by columnists. There’s the urban <em>we</em>, which Hale ribs as a sort of smug, hipster sanctimony: “We should really compost, honey.” And then there’s the nanny <em>we</em>: “We don’t play with our food now, do we?”</p>
<p>&nbsp;Since we still use various collective <em>we</em>’s, we are still referring to ourselves as <em>ourself.</em></p>
<p>The up-to-the-minute corpus <a href="http://corpus.byu.edu/now/">Newspapers on the Web</a> finds hundreds of recent examples of <em>ourself</em>, often in quotations from individuals speaking on behalf of an organization or cause.</p>
<p>Both <em>ourself</em> and <em>themself</em> are attested earlier in the record than their plural counterparts,<em> </em>which<em> </em>superseded them <a href="http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/01/themself/">in the 16<sup>th</sup> century</a>. So they’re not just lofty and quaint: They’re original, even found in some foundational Anglo-Saxon texts.</p>
<p>But c’mon, you might be saying. <em>Ourself</em> simply doesn’t sound as wrong as <em>themself</em>. Compare <em>Jo went to the movie by</em> <em>themself </em>with a coach’s post-game analysis of <em>We really pushed ourself hard this match</em>. The first example just innately sounds more ungrammatical, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>Well, the latter example might enjoy an unfair advantage: The plural <em>our</em> agrees with the plural subject, dampening the din of disagreement some hear as more jarring between <em>Jo </em>and <em>themself</em>. (Conversely, many users of collective <em>we</em> may err on the side of <em>ourself,</em> as <em>ourselves</em> may jar some with its suggestion of multiple speakers.)</p>
<p>And are there any good alternatives to <em>themself? </em>Style mongers might blow their whistle at the alien-y <a href="http://www.citylab.com/navigator/2015/09/ze-or-they-a-guide-to-using-gender-neutral-pronouns/407167/">xeself</a>, the impersonal <em>oneself</em>, the clumsy <em>him or herself</em>. While we often judge grammaticality by our ear, we should be sensitive: <em>themself</em>, along with <em>ourself</em> and <em>us self</em>, are perfectly grammatical in certain speech communities. Not to mention that, for the person who identifies as genderqueer, some alternatives to <em>themself</em> don’t accurately represent their identity.</p>
<p>Once upon a time, we called ourselves whatever we wanted. As early as the ninth century, English speakers were using a simple, solo <em>self</em> as its general reflexive and intensive pronoun. The usage leaves us with some great examples in the annals, according to the <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>: <em>god self</em>, <em>man self</em>, <em>lord self</em>, <em>thing self</em>, <em>parties self</em>, <em>poet self</em>. (By this token, Jo saw movie by Jo self.) Yet these usages didn’t stick around. Others did, and merged together with frequent and widespread usage, like <em>himself</em>, <em>herself</em>, <em>myself</em>, <em>itself</em>, and <em>oneself</em>, and, for a time, <em>ourself </em>and <em>themself</em>. <em>Themself </em>is a perfectly acceptable inflection<em> </em>for singular<em> they. </em>If you don’t like it, you’ll soon be by <em>yourself</em> – yet another pronoun that has managed just fine in both the singular and the plural.&nbsp;</p>Mon, 30 May 2016 13:04:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/30/meet_themself_our_next_gender_neutral_singular_pronoun.htmlJohn Kelly2016-05-30T13:04:00ZLifeMeet&nbsp;
<em>Themself,</em>&nbsp;Our Next Gender-Neutral Singular Pronoun241160530001John KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/30/meet_themself_our_next_gender_neutral_singular_pronoun.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs "themself" the next gender neutral singular pronoun?Themself is a perfectly good gender neutral singular pronoun.Photo by Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images&quot;The sweeter welcome, we will keep ourself.&quot; Dancers of the Hungarian contemporary dance group, the 'Kulcsar Noemi Tellabor' perform Macbeth.&nbsp;The Fascinating Lexicography of a Dirty Adjectivehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/26/the_lexicography_of_a_dirty_adjective_verb_and_noun.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/a-rather-shit-post/">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing</em>.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Sometime in the 20<sup>th</sup> century,&nbsp;<em>shit</em>—having already long been a verb and then a noun—also became an adjective, as in&nbsp;<em>He was a shit teacher</em>&nbsp;or&nbsp;<em>That restaurant has shit service</em>. Exactly when this happened is a bit tricky to pin down, precisely because of the word’s versatility. In many contexts, the&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;you think is an adjective might actually be a noun.</p>
<p>There’s a common misconception that putting one noun in front of another noun turns the first into an adjective:</p>
<p>These statements reveal a confusion between a word’s class and its grammatical function. A noun (say,&nbsp;<em>cunt</em>) doesn’t suddenly become an adjective just because it’s used to modify another noun (say,&nbsp;<em>hair</em>). The&nbsp;<em>cunt</em>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<em>cunt</em>&nbsp;<em>hair</em>&nbsp;is still a noun (its word class), but it happens to function grammatically as a modifier. Because adjectives are prototypical modifiers, people sometimes learn that all modifiers “act as adjectives.”</p>
<p>Nominal and adjectival&nbsp;<em>shit,</em>&nbsp;however, offer a great opportunity to tease out the distinction, even though the boundary can get a bit murky.</p>
<p>As&nbsp;<a href="http://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.ca/2007/01/scatalogical-adjectives.html">linguist Lynne Murphy pointed out in 2007</a>, using&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;as adjective is much more common in the U.K. than in North America, where speakers prefer using&nbsp;<em>shitty</em>. In fact, although the&nbsp;<em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>&nbsp;has an entry for adjectival&nbsp;<em>shit</em>, defining it as “Bad; unpleasant; highly displeasing; unskilled; of poor quality, ability, etc.,”&nbsp;<em>Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged</em>&nbsp;doesn’t even acknowledge it.</p>
<p>In contrast,&nbsp;<em>shit&nbsp;</em>as an attributive noun is much more widespread and has a transparent definition. A&nbsp;<em>shit house</em>&nbsp;is a house in which one shits, for example, and a&nbsp;<em>shit sandwich</em>&nbsp;is a sandwich made with shit—whereas a&nbsp;<em>shit book, shit</em>&nbsp;used adjectivally here, is just a terrible book.</p>
<p>Another clue is in how readily&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;compounds.&nbsp;<em>Shit storm</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>shit stain,&nbsp;</em>where&nbsp;<em>shit&nbsp;</em>is a noun, can be rendered as&nbsp;<em>shitstorm</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>shitstain</em>&nbsp;with little confusion to the reader, but you probably wouldn’t say *<em>I have a shitcar</em>&nbsp;when you mean&nbsp;<em>I have a shit car</em>. Note also the difference in stress: the emphasis in&nbsp;<em>shit storm&nbsp;</em>and&nbsp;<em>shit stain</em>&nbsp;is unambiguously on the&nbsp;<em>shit</em>.&nbsp;<em>Shit car</em>&nbsp;has equal emphasis on both words.</p>
<p>If you can replace&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;with&nbsp;<em>shitty</em>&nbsp;without changing the meaning, you’ve got yourself an adjectival&nbsp;<em>shit</em>:&nbsp;<em>I have a shitty car</em>&nbsp;is pretty much the same as<em>&nbsp;I have a shit car</em>, but it doesn’t make sense to say *<em>This place is a shitty hole</em>&nbsp;when you mean&nbsp;<em>This place is a shit hole,&nbsp;</em>and<em>&nbsp;a shitty show</em>&nbsp;doesn’t mean the same thing as<em>&nbsp;a</em>&nbsp;<em>shit show.&nbsp;</em>Whether&nbsp;<em>shitty</em>&nbsp;and adjectival&nbsp;<em>shit&nbsp;</em>are truly equivalent is a matter of debate. Ben Yagoda’s exploration of a similar pair—<a href="https://britishisms.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/crap-as-adjective-versus-crappy/">adjectival&nbsp;<em>crap</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>crappy</em></a>—suggests that to some speakers, they’re subtly distinct semantically.</p>
<p>A final test: Can you intensify? If the&nbsp;<a href="http://corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/">Corpus of Global Web-based English (GloWbE)</a>&nbsp;is any indication, intensifying&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;is almost unheard of in North America but is prevalent in the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand. Even if it sounds odd to the North American ear, though, a phrase that accommodates an adverb like<em>&nbsp;quite</em>&nbsp;in front of the&nbsp;<em>shit</em>—as in&nbsp;<em>That movie was quite&nbsp;shit</em>—is proof your&nbsp;<em>shit&nbsp;</em>is adjectival and not nominal.</p>
<p>We can find some collocations commonly used in North America where the&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;is more likely adjectival than nominal: telling an American that you had a&nbsp;<em>shit day</em>&nbsp;working a&nbsp;<em>shit job</em>&nbsp;for&nbsp;<em>shit pay</em>&nbsp;wouldn’t be out of the ordinary.&nbsp;<em>Shit job</em>&nbsp;is, according to GloWbE, almost as popular in the US as in the UK, and s<em>hit day</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>shit pay</em>&nbsp;are&nbsp;<em>more</em>&nbsp;popular.</p>
<p>The&nbsp;<em>OED’</em>s earliest citation of adjectival&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;is from the 1968 biography of the Beatles by Hunter Davies, who quoted John Lennon as saying “I think [jazz] is shit music, even more stupid than rock and roll.” I suspect the usage is older, and&nbsp;<em>Green’s Dictionary of Slang&nbsp;</em>does go back further, citing Ernest Hemingway, who wrote “All criticism is shit anyway” in a 1925 letter. The problem with this example is that this use of&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;is predicative, coming after the noun, so it could be interpreted as either an adjective or a noun. “All criticism is shitty anyway” and “All criticism is (metaphorical) shit anyway” both make sense.</p>
<p>For predicative&nbsp;<em>shit,</em>&nbsp;one way to tell if it’s meant as an adjective is if it has an adverb modifying it, but the historical corpora that I dug through, including Google Books and the&nbsp;<a href="http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/">Corpus of Historical American English (COHA)</a>, didn’t have any examples of intensified&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;that antedated the Davies quote. Another method is to look for&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;used after particular copula (linking) verbs. We can’t say for sure if&nbsp;<em>she is shit</em>&nbsp;is adjectival, but <em>that seems shit</em>&nbsp;or&nbsp;<em>it looks shit</em>&nbsp;would be.</p>
<p>The earliest plausible candidate&nbsp;I could find was&nbsp;<em>shit deal</em>, which pops up in American Mark Harris’ 1956 novel&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/080327338X/?tag=slatmaga-20">Bang the Drum Slowly</a>.</em>&nbsp;I’d argue it’s adjectival, in that the phrase is roughly equivalent to&nbsp;<em>shitty deal.</em></p>
<p>Without a corpus of British English equivalent to COHA, it’s not easy to figure out where and when adjectival&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;originated. Google Ngram Viewer’s&nbsp;part-of-speech tagging implies it might have begun sometime in the 1930s, but I question its reliability. These results also suggest that&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;as an adjective is more common than&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;as a verb, which we know isn’t true.</p>
<p>If you discover an early, unambiguous instance of&nbsp;<em>shit</em>&nbsp;as an adjective, I’d love to hear about it in the comments.</p>Thu, 26 May 2016 19:48:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/26/the_lexicography_of_a_dirty_adjective_verb_and_noun.htmlIva Cheung2016-05-26T19:48:00ZLifeThe Fascinating Lexicography of a Dirty Adjective241160526001strong languagelanguageswearingIva CheungLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/26/the_lexicography_of_a_dirty_adjective_verb_and_noun.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe fascinating lexicography of a dirty adjective:Which is also a noun and a verb.Photo illustration by Sofya Levina. ikopylov/ThinkstockDear Journalists: For the Love of God, Please Stop Calling Your Writing Content&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/25/content_and_its_discontents_it_s_massively_depressing_when_journalists_call.html
<p>The word <em>content</em> is creeping into journalism, which scares the hell out of me.</p>
<p>You see it in the job listings. <em>Politico</em> is <a href="http://www.politico.com/employment/trade-reporter-politico-pro-edi0072">hiring a reporter</a> who will “deliver the kind of content our subscribers have come to expect.” Time Inc. is recruiting not only for a “digital content enthusiast” to serve as an <a href="https://timeinc.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/Careers/job/New-York-NY/Associate-Editor--FORTUNE_JR0003119-1">associate editor at </a><a href="https://timeinc.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/Careers/job/New-York-NY/Associate-Editor--FORTUNE_JR0003119-1"><em>Fortune</em></a> but also for a <a href="https://timeinc.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/Careers/job/New-York-NY/Breaking-News-Reporter--TIMEcom_JR0003169-1">breaking news reporter at Time.com</a> who will produce “video, mobile and social content”—both of which, as if to hammer the phenomenon home, are listed on the company’s careers page under a category simply called “content,” which when I last checked listed a whopping 75 positions.</p>
<p>It’s a trend that should make anyone who cares about journalism uneasy. “Content” is a vague, cynical word—a lazy catchall for the full spectrum of stuff <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/06/clickhole_writers_explain_their_craft_how_the_onion_s_internet_parody_spinoff.html"><em>ClickHole</em> satirizes</a>, from simpering listicles to hot takes to quizzes that, per <a href="http://www.theawl.com/2016/05/someone-who-wont-shut-up-about-tgif">the <em>Awl</em></a>, “are almost comically transparent in their desire to turn you into a marketable commodity.”</p>
<p>The common denominator, as far as I can tell, is that content is created by the lowest bidder, in the highest volume and to the lowest standard that’ll still attract eyeballs on Facebook. That doesn’t mean it’s all terrible, I suppose—the success of <em>BuzzFeed</em> and <em>Upworthy</em> is a testament to its apparent appeal—but, for the most part, units of content are fundamentally interchangeable, like off-brand Oreos. In a <a href="http://www.wired.com/2009/10/ff_demandmedia/">glum 2009 feature</a>, a <em>Wired </em>writer asked a videographer who had shot an astonishing 40,000 videos for the pioneering content mill Demand Media whether any particular project he’d done for the company stood out as a favorite. The videographer demurred; “I can’t really remember most of them,” he said.</p>
<p>That’s not, I’d like to think, a healthy way of looking at journalism. Doing so is certain to bring some of content’s low-rent sensibilities into the newsroom, and particularly the odious idea that page views are more important than basic, decent things like tracking down sources and fact checking and using common sense.</p>
<p><em>U.S. News &amp; World Report</em>, to pick a particularly transparent example of that drive for web traffic, <a href="http://usnews.hrmdirect.com/employment/job-opening.php?req=367669&amp;&amp;cust_sort3=17279&amp;&amp;nohd">is currently hiring a features editor</a> who will, in the words of the job listing, collaborate “with product and SEO [search engine optimization] teams on content ideas.” It’s worth letting that wash over you again; the person who takes that job will be choosing things to write about with the goal of maximizing traffic from Google search results.</p>
<p>In journalism-as-content, the typical way to throw together a story is to avoid original research entirely, either by whipping up a sassy spin on another publication’s work or by weaving atomic units of social media like tweets and Tumblr screencaps into a passable narrative. The <em>Guardian</em> recently ran a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/17/fake-news-stories-clicks-fact-checking">dispiriting story</a> about how those thinly sourced social media articles often turn out to be false or woefully distorted; journalists quoted in the piece pinned the blame on their management’s bottomless hunger for viral hits. “There is definitely a pressure to churn out stories, including dubious ones, in order to get clicks, because they equal money,” said one of them, who the <em>Guardian</em> didn’t identify by name.</p>
<p>And even if a story isn’t exactly false, journalism-as-content can give rise to coverage so hasty and divorced from context that it loses any particular meaning. Last year, for some reason, I set up a news alert for Kevin Bollaert, a sleazebag who went to prison for running a revenge porn site in California. Last month, I was surprised to see a <a href="http://www.attn.com/stories/7442/revenge-porn-site-operator-sentenced-18-years-prison">new story about Bollaert</a> pop up, this time on the blog ATTN—its <a href="http://www.attn.com/about">about page</a> declares that “content is chief”—except that when I opened it, it seemed to be the same year-old news that Bollaert had been sentenced by a San Diego judge, repackaged under a salacious new headline. On closer inspection, it turned out that the author had mistaken a 2015 story about the sentencing for a current one. (To ATTN’s credit, someone eventually updated the post with a sheepish explanation that the sentencing had been “incorrectly reported as breaking news.”)</p>
<p>Still, it’s tough to imagine the slurry of sloppy research and pressure to publish that could lead to presenting a year-old story as the news of the day. Talking to a single source, or even checking Twitter, would have easily avoided the whole mess, and the fact that they apparently didn’t raises the uncomfortable question: If the story hadn’t been a year off schedule, what would ATTN’s know-nothing hot take have added to our understanding of it? What’s the reason, other than fishing for traffic, that it needed to be published at all?</p>
<p>There’s not an easy solution here. Journalism is in the throes of a terrible revenue crisis. That’s spurred some outlets to <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2016/the-new-york-times-of-the-future-is-beginning-to-take-shape/413097/">try all sorts of cool experiments</a>, but it’s led many others to <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/these-journalists-dedicated-their-lives-to-telling-other-peoples-stories/">lay off droves of seasoned staff</a>, cut expensive coverage, and fall back on the cheap fluff of content.</p>
<p>I should acknowledge, by the way, that I’m part of the problem. I’ve published plenty of thinly sourced drek, which I tell myself is because it helps pay my bills and lets me work on stuff that isn’t drek. In my defense (I hope) it makes me feel like trash every time.</p>
<p>Still, the words we use matter. I find the idea of someone aspiring to create content, in as many words, to be almost indescribably sad. It seems like an act of pre-emptive surrender, of giving up hope that you’ll ever create something with a higher calling than attracting clicks for some monolithic publisher.</p>
<p>So here’s my plea to everybody that creates things to share on the internet, and especially journalists: take enough pride in what you do to be specific. If you report, call yourself a reporter. If you argue, call yourself an essayist. If you collate GIFs—well, make up a cool job description for yourself.</p>
<p>Call it something. Just don’t call it content. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>Wed, 25 May 2016 13:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/25/content_and_its_discontents_it_s_massively_depressing_when_journalists_call.htmlJon Christian2016-05-25T13:00:00ZLifeDear Journalists: For the Love of God, Please Stop Calling Your Writing Content&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;241160525001languagejournalismJon ChristianLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/25/content_and_its_discontents_it_s_massively_depressing_when_journalists_call.htmlfalsefalsefalseDear journalists: For the love of God, please stop calling your writing content.It's really depressing.Spencer Platt/Getty Images#Content.Cheesy, Syrupy, Corny: Why Do We Describe Art We Dislike as if It Tastes Bad?http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/24/schmaltzy_cheesy_corny_syrupy_why_do_our_names_for_negative_sensibilities.html
<p>So much negative aesthetic criticism appears to take place in the kitchen. Saccharine and corny, schmaltzy and sour. Hammy, cheesy, vanilla. Applied synesthetically, visual and sonic descriptors often exalt creative work: A singer’s voice is shimmering, a film sequence is jazzy. But with a few exceptions—<em>spicy</em> erotica, <em>bittersweet</em> finales—we know exactly how to telegraph our disdain for (or grudging pleasure in) bad art. We compare it to bad food.</p>
<p>The food is bad in the way that the art is bad. It’s not so much disagreeable as unhealthy, even unvirtuous. Fluorescent with goopy cheese, oozing easy sentiment, it clogs our arteries and blunts our intellects. In his lyric <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=0R-aO9bolKcC&amp;pg=PA545&amp;lpg=PA545&amp;dq=auden+grown+insolent+and+fat+on&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=4rZPl_oF25&amp;sig=m5MCnmeN5RUDZ4h2rsRsJzNzqKw&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjrqqSxtd_MAhXBFx4KHVuOAFAQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Nibbar&amp;f=false"><em>Cattivo</em> <em>Tempo</em></a>, Auden introduces an anti-poetic rascal named Nibbar, who whispers, in the writing room, of “the nearly fine, the almost true.” This scoundrel has “grown insolent and fat/ on cheesy literature/ and corny dramas.” He figures forth the dissipation he brings. He’s gobbled up his own bad aesthetics and battened on them.</p>
<p>Even in praise, a clear division exists. Between <em>delicious </em>and <em>dazzling, </em>guess<em> </em>which adjective is more likely to tag the Pulitzer Prize–winning novel and which the guilty pleasure. The discerning eye perceives prose that <em>glistens </em>or <em>shines </em>or <em>is luminous</em>. The expert ear notices musical phrasing and a clarity of voice. But a <em>scrumptious </em>tell-all, a <em>yummy</em> story—leave that to your wife’s book club. Given five good senses, why do we turn to taste to communicate distaste?</p>
<p>Bodily denial is encoded deep in our aesthetic standards, not to mention our sensory hierarchy. Words like cheese, schmaltz, and sap connote glut, overload, and decadence. They evoke a sentimentality defined by the excess of feeling, especially coarse or cheap feeling. More refined sensibilities arch toward <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2015/11/against_subtlety_the_case_for_heavy_handedness_in_art.html">subtlety</a>, like plants toward the light. But the slovenly palate of the rube requires heavy stimulation.</p>
<p>Some have argued that the category “sentimental” is intellectually spurious, a way of “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/07/science_of_sentimentality_why_we_love_weepy_ya_books_and_movies.html">sneering at emotion you don’t agree with</a>,” according to psychologist Keith Oatley. They point out that the term historically attached to 19<sup>th</sup>-century fiction written by women—“<a href="http://www.bl.uk/collection-items/silly-novels-by-lady-novelists-essay-by-george-eliot">silly novels by lady novelists</a>” like George Eliot—and that no one would begrudge Keats his lyrical raptures, his poetry that “surprise[s] by a fine excess.”</p>
<p>Doctors first started using <em>cheesy </em>metaphorically in the early 1700s, to describe pathologies of the human body. “Cheesy plugs often occlude the bronchial tubes,” warned a popular medical treatise in 1881. Around the same time, English schoolboys adopted the term to mean “fine or showy,” then sardonically reversed its definition. By the turn of the century, <em>cheesy </em>denoted something “<a href="http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/31191?redirectedFrom=cheesy#eid">inferior, second-rate, cheap, and nasty</a>.” From there, it was a quick jump to our current sense of tawdry or mawkish. According to the <em>OED, </em>late-20<sup>th</sup>-century usages of the word form a tacky, cubic zirconia-studded array: <em>Cheesy Moroccan souvenirs for tourists. The TV hero’s cheesy superantics. Cheesy pub karaoke.</em></p>
<p><em>Corny </em>sprang up in late 1920s jazz culture. Musicians called a style of play <em>corny </em>if it conjured the rustic, old-fashioned riffs of a hayseed suddenly transplanted to the big city. Or they’d fling the term to suggest a trite flourish of horns belonged at a square dance, not a jazz club. There’s also evidence that the insult arose from the folksy seed catalogs of the late 19<sup>th</sup> and early 20<sup>th</sup> centuries, which interpolated product names with broad, golly-gee humor. Thanks to these pamphlets, a genre of obvious jokes was christened “corn jokes,” “cornfed,” or simply “corny.”&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>Schmaltzy</em>. This one hails from the Yiddish word for grease; <em>schmaltz </em>is melted chicken or goose fat that congeals during the cooking process. <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s <a href="https://333sound.com/2014/04/25/lets-talk-about-love-week-video-vault-episode-25/">Carl Wilson points out</a> it was used to describe the embarrassingly “heart-on-sleeve” work of immigrant singers in the early 20<sup>th</sup> century: “the Irish, Italians, and (as the term makes aromatically clear) Jews.” Auden, nursing an apparent preoccupation with unctuous, falsified emotion, wrote of the “schmaltz tenor never quite able at his big moments to get right up.”</p>
<p><em>Saccharine</em>, a sugary adjective from 17<sup>th</sup>-century chemistry, acquired its metaphorical properties no later than 1841, when Ralph Waldo Emerson discussed “the abundant flow” of a “saccharine element of pleasure” through the American suburbs. A romance novel marketed to women in the 1950s described a lord struggling to free himself from “the saccharine entanglements” of “the Squire’s unlovely daughters.” (Was saccharine becoming the chief ingredient in warm apple pies baked by Stepford wives?)</p>
<p>Why is the overflowing emotion of sentimentality coded female? Why is it junk food? And what should we make of the spiritual obesity we’ve imagined is the consequence of aesthetic overconsumption? When I read about <em>cheesy</em> theme music or <em>schmaltzy</em> romance, I hear: Don’t be messy, gloppy, passionate, or needy. Don’t overindulge your feelings or your appetites.</p>
<p>Yet eating may be our most visceral metaphor for how great art gets absorbed and consumed. The analogy ministers to our feeling that creative work molds our bodies and minds in elemental, bone-deep ways. In Rilke’s <a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/text/archaic-torso-apollo">most cruelly implacable verse</a>, a carved torso of Apollo commands the viewer to seek, through aesthetic contemplation, a transformative goodness she will never reach. “You must change your life,” the perfect (though incomplete) physical specimen instructs. Since Apollo issues the same moral challenge to everyone who approaches, his point isn’t <em>how</em> you must change your life; it’s the fact of—the relentless need for—metamorphosis. There is no finish line.</p>
<p>You must change your life. What could the god mean? Perhaps that the world is too much with you—too much fleshly distraction enrobes your creative soul. He remains, of course, a fragment: 20 percent marble and 80 percent disembodied spirit. And his remorseless directive feels like a call for the museumgoer to pare away all her everyday crap and plug into something as ethereal, essential, and inhuman as electricity.</p>
<p>This paring away is not a quest that ends. It is the opposite of Nibbar’s gorging on crude sentiment, but in its own way it is insatiable. I wish we could link eating for pleasure to aesthetic bounty as tightly as we now bind it to aesthetic “badness.” If only our vocabulary for assessing art did not so persistently claim that less emotion, less femininity, and less physical presence on earth is more. (Putting aside the question of “More <em>what</em>?”—which Apollo doesn’t seem to answer—shouldn’t creativity be abundant and affirming?) Rilke gives his archaic morsel the last word in the poem, and yet I hunger to offer a contemporary retort: <em>Don’t tell me to change my life, but to live it. </em>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>Tue, 24 May 2016 16:26:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/24/schmaltzy_cheesy_corny_syrupy_why_do_our_names_for_negative_sensibilities.htmlKaty Waldman2016-05-24T16:26:00ZLifeCheesy, Syrupy, Corny: Why Do We Describe Art We Dislike as if It Tastes Bad?241160524001languageKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/24/schmaltzy_cheesy_corny_syrupy_why_do_our_names_for_negative_sensibilities.htmlfalsefalsefalseCheesy, syrupy, corny: Why do we describe art we dislike as if it tastes bad?The food is bad in the way that the art is bad. It’s not so much disagreeable as unhealthy, even unvirtuous.David Boily/AFP/Getty ImagesArt!Sometimes, Reporters ​Should Clean Up Ungrammatical Quoteshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/23/carlos_gomez_quote_uproar_should_reporters_edit_sources_grammatically_incorrect.html
<p>A few weeks ago, sports writer Brian T. Smith wrote a <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/columnists/smith/article/Carlos-Gomez-knows-he-s-a-disappointment-to-7394244.php?t=3416a9511e438d9cbb&amp;cmpid=twitter-premium">column</a> for the <em>Houston Chronicle </em>about an outfielder for the Astros, Carlos G&oacute;mez, who has gotten off to a slow start this season. Smith interviewed the Dominican-born G&oacute;mez and quoted him exactly, relaying his words as follows: “For the last year and this year, I not really do much for this team. The fans be angry. They be disappointed.”</p>
<p>The quote stood out, because sports writers don’t usually transcribe so precisely the words of players for whom English is their second language. Usually, sports writers clean those quotes up. (Even <em>Breitbart</em> has <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/03/12/flamboyant-mlb-players-may-bring-cultural-shift-to-the-sport/">rendered</a> Go-Go’s speech with correct, if informal, grammar.) Critics, including <a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15528312/carlos-gomez-houston-astros-discusses-feeling-disrespected-newspaper-column">G&oacute;mez himself</a>, took Smith to task for seeming to mock the athlete’s incorrect English. <em>Chronicle </em>editor Nancy Barnes apologized, citing “<a href="http://journal-isms.com/2016/05/houston-paper-sorry-in-quoting-broken-english/">less than adequate</a>” AP guidelines on quoting news sources who did not grow up speaking George Washington’s tongue. On <em>Deadspin</em>, Tom Ley <a href="http://deadspin.com/carlos-gomez-calls-out-columnist-for-quoting-him-poorly-1775106333">suggested</a> that Gomez “has a right to be annoyed” that a reporter “went off and made him look dumb by not extending him a courtesy that most people quoted by reporters get”: that of subtly tweaked sentences.</p>
<p>Not everyone agrees. Over at ESPN’s brand-new site the <em>Undefeated</em>, <a href="http://theundefeated.com/features/we-gonna-be-championship-a-new-approach-to-fixing-quotes/">J.A. Adande used the incident to inveigh</a> against the cleaning up of quotes. “Since when should journalists apologize for being accurate?” Adande asked. Doesn’t objectivity demand absolute faithfulness to what a person says, not what he means to say?</p>
<p>But context matters. It’s common practice in journalism for writers quoting sources to remove filler words—<em>like, ah, um</em>—and correct tiny grammatical violations. (<strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s policy is to handle such issues on a case-by-case basis, but many writers at the magazine I spoke to told me they make such elisions and alterations all the time.) This is done to present information to readers as clearly as possible. It services the idea that we should be focusing on the content of the quote, not the slight infelicities that distinguish spoken from written English. It’s also done because writers scribbling in notebooks are unlikely to recall every twist and turn of a quote, and tend to streamline and standardize sentences in their notes.</p>
<p>So that expectation of unfailing accuracy is already misplaced. But Adande argues further that fixing quotes patronizes sources, implying that their words “are inherently inferior and must be corrected.” Yes, this is a problem when, for instance, white newsrooms insist on doctoring the expressions of black people to make them conform to Standard English—as if Black English were not <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2015/06/05/the_habitual_be_why_cookie_monster_be_eating_cookies_whether_he_is_eating.html">a legitimate dialect on its own</a>.</p>
<p>But we are not talking here about established vernaculars like <a href="http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/columnists/smith/article/Carlos-Gomez-knows-he-s-a-disappointment-to-7394244.php?t=3416a9511e438d9cbb&amp;cmpid=twitter-premium">AAE</a>. We are talking about the imperfect phrases of a non-native English speaker—phrases that, quoted exactly, read to many readers (including, in this case, the subject himself) as a writer needlessly lampooning a source’s manner of speech. “Reasonable people can make allowances for those who use English as a second language,” Adande wrote, referring to G&oacute;mez. “Instead of teasing them for their shortcomings, we can applaud them for successfully conveying their thoughts.”</p>
<p>But the role of journalists is neither to tease nor to applaud, but to deliver information as clearly and truthfully as possible. To include a grammatical error in a news story is to hint that such error is somehow significant, rather than something most of us do when we are asked to extemporize aloud. Certainly, there are times when replicating someone’s exact rhetorical tics on paper illumines a deeper truth. But what was Smith illuminating by preserving G&oacute;mez’ broken English in an article about his .226 batting average? What cultural heritage was he honoring? What characterological or intellectual traits did he highlight? &nbsp;</p>
<p>Gomez read the untweaked quote as an unkindness, as many readers did. G&oacute;mez was right, and Smith was wrong, and you can quote me on that.&nbsp;</p>Mon, 23 May 2016 17:25:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/23/carlos_gomez_quote_uproar_should_reporters_edit_sources_grammatically_incorrect.htmlKaty Waldman2016-05-23T17:25:00ZLifeSometimes, Reporters
<em>​Should</em> Clean Up Ungrammatical Quotes241160523002languagejournalismKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/23/carlos_gomez_quote_uproar_should_reporters_edit_sources_grammatically_incorrect.htmlfalsefalsefalseSometimes, reporters *should* clean up ungrammatical quotes:Gomez was right and Smith was wrong and you can quote me on that.Bob Levey/Getty ImagesCarlos G&oacute;mez of the Houston AstrosWhy Are You Talking to Your Dog Instead of to Me?&nbsp;http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/23/why_are_you_talking_to_your_dog_instead_of_to_me.html
<p>Not long ago, I lived in an apartment complex that billed itself as a “modern living community.” It was furnished with a nice pool, a community room, grills, a gym. It even had a dog run for its canine tenants. This was the perfect place to meet some new people, I thought. Nothing is as socially lubricating as dogs.</p>
<p>But as my pet and I approached another pet-human pair, I’d hear: “Spike, let’s stop that barking. No, Spike!” Or, in a singsong soprano as I opened my mouth to say hello: “C’mon, Lola. Let's go. It's not playtime now.”</p>
<p><a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/296/5572/1435">Pet-directed speech</a>, or PDS, is a real linguistic phenomenon. (Its high-pitched register—“You’re just the best boy, aren’t you?!”—resembles infant-directed speech.) But I think I was observing something else: pet-directed speech used to mask human-directed speech. In asking Spike to quiet down, my neighbor was really communicating: “I see you and your dog. I’m sorry if my dog’s a bit annoying. I’m just gonna move over here.” In coaxing Lola along, my neighbor was saying, “Hey. Just kinda doing my thing right now. Getting ready for the workday. You know, right? I’m not really in the place for a whole dog production at the moment. Sorry?”</p>
<p>To the linguist, my neighbors were performing both locutionary and illocutionary <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/%23AspIllFor">speech acts</a>. Their locutionary acts comprised the surface meaning of their utterances: “Stop barking, Spike.” But their illocutionary acts conveyed their intended meaning: “I want to be left alone.” By talking to their dogs, my neighbors managed to acknowledge my presence (it would be rude not to) without engaging in conversation—and without losing any face.</p>
<p>I have observed similar indirect illocutions in other canine encounters. From owners struggling to manage a hyperactive or aggressive pooch, dog etiquette typically requires some mild embarrassment and a polite apology. Instead, I’ve seen face-saving acknowledgment of the misbehavior directed <em>at the dog</em>. At the park, another owner will completely ignore me in order to crouch down and ask my pet: “And what’s your name, buddy? You’re cute.” If our dogs could talk, we’d probably never have reason to speak to another human again.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>I think this sociolinguistic puppy deserves a name. Let’s call it “dog-directed indirect illocutionary discursive politeness events.” Or as the rest of us probably know it: “I’m sorry, but I can’t be bothered to talk to you.” Woof.</p>Mon, 23 May 2016 14:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/23/why_are_you_talking_to_your_dog_instead_of_to_me.htmlJohn Kelly2016-05-23T14:00:00ZLifeWhy Are You Talking to Your Dog Instead of to Me?&nbsp;
<strong></strong>241160523001languagepetsJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/23/why_are_you_talking_to_your_dog_instead_of_to_me.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy are you talking to your dog instead of to me?It's human-directed speech masked as dog-directed speech.Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty ImagesActually, I prefer silence.&nbsp;Shakespearean Slanghttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/17/usage_of_modern_slang_in_shakespeare_s_titus_andronicus.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/shockingly-modern-sounding-sexual-slang-in-shakespeares-shockingly-violent-titus-andronicus/">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.&nbsp;</em></p>
<p>While we flip the&nbsp;<a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/the-finger-or-bird-is-the-word/">bird</a>&nbsp;at explicit language advisories on this blog, I do want to issue a trigger warning for this post due to fictional content about rape. That’s a hell of way to kick off a little language study, huh? But even by today’s standards, Shakespeare’s&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plots/titusps.html">Titus Andronicus</a></em>, with its human sacrifice, gang rape, and cannibalism, is just brutally fucking violent. Amid all its carnage, though, is some sexual wordplay that sounds, well, shockingly modern for a play written more than 400 years ago.</p>
<p>In just one of its many fucked-up episodes, this fuck, Aaron, helps these two other fucks, brothers Chiron and Demetrius, scheme to rape Lavinia, Titus’ daughter. As the three hatch their unconscionable plot, they amuse each other—you’re a real motherfucker, Shakespeare—with a little wordplay about stealing Lavinia away from her husband for their evil act:</p>
<blockquote>
Demetrius: What, hast not thou full often struck a doe
<br /> And borne her cleanly by the keeper’s nose?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Aaron: Why then, it seems some certain snatch or so
<br /> Would serve your turns.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Chiron: Ay, so the turn were served.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Demetrius: Aaron, thou has hit it.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Aaron: Would you had hit it too… (2.1.93-97)
</blockquote>
<p>In terms of strong language, “snatch” jumps right out. Today,&nbsp;<em>snatch</em>&nbsp;is coarse slang for “vagina,” but this particular usage doesn’t emerge until much later; the&nbsp;<em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> attests it by the early 1900s. But “snatch” is still sexually suggestive here. For a&nbsp;<em>snatch</em>&nbsp;was once also a “snack,” a quick bite of food. In the late 16<sup>th</sup> century, we see this&nbsp;<em>snatch</em>&nbsp;applied to the Elizabethan equivalent of a quickie, often with prostitutes.&nbsp;<em>Snatch&nbsp;</em>was then likely transferred to the female anatomy it so derogates today.</p>
<p>Unlike&nbsp;<em>snatch</em>, “turn” doesn’t seem so swearily salient. It&nbsp;may sound innocent enough to the modern ear, but&nbsp;<em>turn</em>&nbsp;also refers to sex.&nbsp;<em>Turn</em>’s a particularly nefarious and disturbing word in this passage, for it also underscores the fact that the brothers are committing gang rape (ugh, taking turns) and calls back previous lines where Demetrius essentially claims sexual entitlement to women (getting his turn).</p>
<p>Then we have this “hit it.” It sounds like a bit of current sexual slang jarringly out of place in Shakespearean verse, doesn’t it? Or are we just randy readers, supplying sexual subtext where none is warranted? Well, when Demetrius tells Aaron he has “hit it,” he’s saying Aaron’s point really hit the nail on the head (an idiom which actually dates back to the 15<sup>th</sup> century, as it happens). But Aaron’s rejoining “hit it” is basically what you think it means: not so different from when a 21<sup>st</sup>-century bro casually shares his objectifying desire for a woman with “I’d&nbsp;<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hit+it">hit it</a>.”</p>
<p>Aaron is not so eager to help Chiron and Demetrius later in the play, though. A little context aids this passage: Aaron, the Moor, has a bastard child with the brothers’ mother, Tamora, Queen of the Goths and newly wedded Roman empress. A nurse tells him that the “Empress … bids thee christen it with thy dagger’s point” (4.2.69-70), but Aaron, horrible as he is, draws the line at the infanticide of his own child, thankfully:</p>
<blockquote>
Aaron: Zounds, ye whore, is black so base a hue?
<br /> Sweet blowze, you are beauteous blossom, sure.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Demetrius: Villain, what has thou done?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Aaron: That which thou canst undo.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Chiron: Thou has undone our mother.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Aaron: Villain, I have done thy mother.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Demetrius: And therein, hellish dog, thou has undone her. (4.2.71-77)
</blockquote>
<p>Aaron issues a few choice words aside from the more obvious “whore” and “villain.” <em>Zounds</em>&nbsp;was a&nbsp;<a href="http://Shockingly%20Old%20Sexual%20Slang%20in%20Shakespeare%E2%80%99s%20(Shockingly%20Violent)%20Titus%20Andronicus/">minced oath</a>&nbsp;for “God’s wounds.” And&nbsp;<em>blowze</em>&nbsp;really packs in the insults: In the 1731 edition of his&nbsp;<em><a href="https://books.google.ie/books/about/An_Universal_Etymological_English_Dictio.html?id=a_tIAAAAcAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y">Universal Etymological English Dictionary</a></em>, Nathaniel Bailey defined&nbsp;<em>blowze</em>, as quoted in the&nbsp;<em>OED</em>, “A fat, red-faced, bloted wench, or one whose head is dressed like a slattern.” The sexist insult survives in&nbsp;<em>blowzy</em>.</p>
<p>Aaron even employs some pronominal profanity, if you will. Socially inferior to the queen’s sons, Aaron uses&nbsp;<a href="http://www.shakespeareswords.com/thou-and-you">the more familiar “thy”</a>&nbsp;when addressing Chiron as opposed to the more polite and then-class-appropriate “you” he employs in the previous passage. For Shakespeare, nothing says “fuck you” like “fuck thee.”</p>
<p>But for all his old time-y insults, Aaron also fires off a dis that sounds like Shakespeare talking smack in the contemporary schoolyard: “Villain, I have done thy mother.” Like his “hit it,” Aaron’s&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do+it">do</a></em>&nbsp;means exactly what our modern naughty minds want this surprisingly old expression to mean. As a euphemism for “having sex,” the&nbsp;<em>OED</em>&nbsp;attests <em>do</em>&nbsp;in the late 15<sup>th</sup> century. William Caxton gets the first citation, in fact. (The sexy expletive,&nbsp;<em>it</em>, is found even earlier, dated to the 1440s.)</p>
<p>What can we take away from all this? For one thing, slang and swearing don’t typically age well. Shakespeare’s&nbsp;<em>villain</em>’s are today’s Disney baddies. And to be fair, Shakespeare would have been all WTF over today’s&nbsp;<em><a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/omfg-sweary-abbreviations-ftfw/">WTF</a></em>. Language, especially slang, is constantly evolving to meet the various and changing needs of its users. But sometimes strong language is surprisingly durable, as we see in Shakespeare’s&nbsp;modern-sounding “hit it” and “do.”</p>
<p>For another thing, even expressions like “hit it” and “do,” while simple in their construction from nuts-and-bolts words, can reveal a sort of primally violent and deeply gendered foundation, at least when we consider them in the context of something as gruesome as&nbsp;<em>Titus Andronicus</em>. If anything, though, the few bits of strong language there are in&nbsp;<em>Titus Andronicus&nbsp;</em>provide a welcome linguistic distraction to this grisly shitshow of a play.</p>Tue, 17 May 2016 17:16:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/17/usage_of_modern_slang_in_shakespeare_s_titus_andronicus.htmlJohn Kelly2016-05-17T17:16:00ZLifeShakespearean Slang241160517001shakespearelanguagestrong languageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/17/usage_of_modern_slang_in_shakespeare_s_titus_andronicus.htmlfalsefalsefalseShakespearean slang:It's surprisingly modern.Underground235/WikimediaThe last scene of <em>Titus Andronicus</em>, performed in Utrecht, Netherlands, in 2012.Forget His Coinages, Shakespeare’s Real Genius Lies in His Noggin-Busting Compounds&nbsp;http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/16/shakespeare_s_brilliant_compounds_are_even_better_than_his_word_coinages.html
<p><em>Assassination</em>, <em>bedazzled</em>, <em>lonely</em>, <em>rant</em>, <em>scuffle</em>, <em>zany</em>: These are just a few of the <a href="http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html">1,700 words</a> we traditionally credit to Shakespeare. Some, like <em>elbow</em>, seem like they should have always existed in the English language; others, such as <em><a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swagger">swagger</a></em>, feel strikingly modern. Perhaps these words, acts of inspired creation from a godlike artist, let us glimpse the genius still gripping us 400 years since he last put quill to parchment. Or perhaps we’re looking for his linguistic prodigy in the wrong place.</p>
<p>For one thing, we can’t say for certain that Shakespeare actually “invented” these words. Even the <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em>, the definitive record of the English language, only documents the earliest <em>written</em> evidence it finds for a word. Shakespeare may simply have been the first person to put down in writing the words we attribute to him. Or he might have been cribbing from older texts that didn’t survive.</p>
<p>Also, the English language was <a href="http://public.oed.com/aspects-of-english/english-in-time/early-modern-english-an-overview/">in violent flux</a> when Shakespeare was writing. The Renaissance flooded English with new words, especially Latin and Greek loanwords for the new and burgeoning discoveries, ideas, and creations of the time. In response, some purists and romantics reached back to the Anglo-Saxon word-hoard for their linguistic inspiration. Beyond its seismic semantics, English was experiencing tremendous internal upheaval in its pronunciation, grammar, and spelling. Shakespeare didn’t simply pull new words out of a vacuum: He was drawing from a environment already electric with linguistic innovation and change.</p>
<p>Perhaps we should locate Shakespeare’s linguistic genius in one of the oldest and most productive means of word formation: compounding. Put simply, a compound makes a new word out of two existing ones. Some are simple nouns or modifiers, like <em>rainbow </em>or <em>fast-acting</em>; others are more grammatically complex, like <em>never-before-seen</em>. (If we study some of the words attributed to Shakespeare, we’ll actually see this process of compounding at work, e.g., <em>bedroom</em> and <em>eyeball.</em>)</p>
<p>Shakespeare seized upon the inherent creative energies of English compounding and transformed them into art. Examples abound throughout his oeuvre, but <em>King Lear </em>shines an especially bright spotlight on his combinatorial craft. In this tragedy, as the aging former monarch descends into madness, Shakespeare’s language explodes with compounds, as if requiring a new vocabulary to describe the depths of Lear’s despair.</p>
<p>First, we behold Lear’s “compounding” rage. He agonizes over one daughter’s “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=kinglear&amp;Act=2&amp;Scene=4&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1408%231408">sharp-toothed unkindness</a>” and wills the “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=kinglear&amp;Act=2&amp;Scene=4&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1450%231450">fen-sucked fogs</a>” to foul her. After another daughter also repudiates him, Lear offers his submission to “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=kinglear&amp;Act=2&amp;Scene=4&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1502%231502">hot-blooded France</a>” and invokes the <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=kinglear&amp;Act=2&amp;Scene=4&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1514%231514">“Thunder-bearer,” “high-judging Jove.”</a> These adjectival compounds lend a vivid imagery and strident music to Lear’s indignation. (They also drape their nouns in the grandeur of the Homeric epithet.) &nbsp;</p>
<p>Next, we learn of nature’s “compounding” wildness. A gentleman reports that a raving Lear is out roving a desolate, storm-struck heath, where he strives “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=kinglear&amp;Act=3&amp;Scene=1&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1621%231621">in his little world of man to out-scorn/ The to-and-fro-conflicting wind and rain</a>” from which even the <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=kinglear&amp;Act=3&amp;Scene=1&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1621%231621">“cub-drawn bear” and “belly-pinched wolf”</a> seek shelter. Lear is only accompanied by his loyal fool, “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=kinglear&amp;Act=3&amp;Scene=1&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1634%231634">who labors to out-jest/ His heart-struck injuries</a>.” “Out-scorn,” “out-jest,” and “to-and-fro-conflicting,” featuring verbal and adverbial compounding, mirror the extremity and the commotion of the storm—and the king.</p>
<p>Then, we witness Lear’s <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=kinglear&amp;keyword1=thought-executing&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">climactic madness</a>:<br /> </p>
<blockquote>
You sulphurous and thought-executing fires,
<br /> Vaunt-couriers to oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
<br /> Singe my white head! And though, all-shaking thunder,
<br /> Smite the flat the thick rotundity o’ the world!
</blockquote>
<p>Amid the forceful modifiers of “oak-cleaving” and “all-shaking” are the “thought-executing” “vaunt-couriers”: lightning bolts.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p>Elsewhere from Lear’s vortical agony, whirlwinds are “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=kinglear&amp;keyword1=star-blasting&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">star-blasting</a>,” nights are “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=kinglear&amp;keyword1=hell-black&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">hell-black</a>,” ungrateful daughters are “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=kinglear&amp;keyword1=dog-hearted&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">dog-hearted</a>,” bastards are “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=kinglear&amp;keyword1=half-blooded&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">half-blooded</a>,” cowards are “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=kinglear&amp;Act=4&amp;Scene=2&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=2395%232395">milk-livered</a>,” traitors are “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=kinglear&amp;keyword1=toad-spotted&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">toad-spotted</a>,” and fortunes are “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=kinglear&amp;keyword1=fire-new&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">fire-new</a>.” All these compounds, of course, have descriptive power. They conjure up a visceral imagery to match the intense events of this tragedy, if not give figure to the ineffable emotions its characters experience.</p>
<p>But Shakespeare’s compounds also have a dramatic power: In them, language becomes a site where the thematic concerns of the play are contested. <em>King Lear</em> collides parent and child, king and servant, man and god, man and nature, young and old, wise and foolish, sane and mad, seeing and blind. Shakespeare stages these conflicts in his very compounds, crashing words together in his storm of language. These compounds aren’t mere words: They are theater.&nbsp;</p>Mon, 16 May 2016 12:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/16/shakespeare_s_brilliant_compounds_are_even_better_than_his_word_coinages.htmlJohn Kelly2016-05-16T12:30:00ZLifeForget His Coinages, Shakespeare’s Real Genius Lies in His Noggin-Busting Compounds&nbsp;241160516001shakespearelanguageJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/16/shakespeare_s_brilliant_compounds_are_even_better_than_his_word_coinages.htmlfalsefalsefalseForget his coinages, Shakespeare's real genius lies in his noggin-busting compoundsTrust us.Anne-Christine Poujoulat/AFP/Getty ImagesFrench actor Philippe Girard performs in a 2015 revival of <em>King Lear</em> at Avignon, France.When F--k Was Fughttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/12/how_the_f_word_was_written_in_1948.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/up-against-the-wall-mother-fugger/">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.&nbsp;</em></p>
<p>As much as the youthful Norman Mailer may have enjoyed inflating his self-image by inundating friend and foe with a superheated geyser of <em>fucks</em>, his favorite word wasn’t acceptable for the printed page in 1948. The disgruntled (read “pissed-off”) Mailer was forced to substitute the word <em>fug</em> for <em>fuck</em> in his gritty war novel&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0312265050/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Naked and the Dead</a></em>. The story goes that this prompted the waggish starlet Tallulah Bankhead to say upon first meeting Mailer, “So you’re the young man who can’t spell <em>fuck</em>.” If Mailer never wanted to see—or say—another <em>fug</em> in his life, there was a counterculture rock group that thought the euphemism was the ideal name to have to “stick it to” the establishment of the 1960s.</p>
<p>Enter the Fugs.</p>
<p><em>Who?</em>&nbsp;some of you may ask. During the summer of 1966, when Jimi Hendrix was playing in a little club in the basement Players Theatre on MacDougal Street in Greenwich Village, and the Mothers of Invention were just starting out a few blocks away on Bleecker Street, the Fugs had already released two albums. Moreover, the likes of Richard Burton, Peter O’Toole, Tennessee Williams, and Leonard Bernstein were making backstage visits upstairs at the same Players Theatre to meet them. The band was formed three years earlier in New York City in mid-1963 by poets Tuli Kupferberg and Ed Sanders, along with musician Ken Weaver. Other musicians joined later. Kupferberg, the group’s founding member, had already published his poetry in his literary journal,&nbsp;<em>Fuck You/ A Magazine of the Arts</em>, and he thought that he could get his anti-war, anti-establishment message across all the better through something where you could tap your toes to the music while you were pounding your fists against injustice.</p>
<p>A satirical and self-satirizing rock band with a political slant, the Fugs not only protested against the Vietnam War, they also filled their songs with humorous lyrics about sex and drugs. Their witty, and sometimes scatological tunes included such songs as “Coca Cola Douche,” “Boobs a Lot,” and “Caca Rocka,” from albums&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0009JPVA6/?tag=slatmaga-20">Virgin Fugs</a></em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004ZLBTYQ/?tag=slatmaga-20">It Crawled Into My Hand, Honest</a></em>. Lyrics rollicked along to extol the virtues of smoking grass and eating pussy. It wasn’t all fun and games, though. The Fugs were environmentalists and social activists, sharply critical of the Vietnam War and authority in general. They were a voice—albeit mostly unheard by the general public—of the discontented anti-establishment of the time, as can be seen in these lyrics from “C I A Man”: Who can kill a general in his bed? Overthrow dictators if they’re Red?/ Fucking-a man! (Fucking-A! C-I-A!)”</p>
<p>The band’s often frank take on politics caused a hostile reaction in some quarters, most notably the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the late 1960s the group was referenced several times in an FBI report that mentions 11 songs from&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000000XEF/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Fugs First Album</a> </em>that are “vulgar and repulsive and are most suggestive.” It should not come as a surprise to learn that the Fugs were not only familiar with Norman Mailer. According to Guggenheim Fellow Sanders, they drew inspiration from such diverse sources as Aristotle’s&nbsp;<em>Poetics</em>, the&nbsp;<em>po&egrave;mes simultan&eacute;s</em>&nbsp;of the Dadaists in Zurich’s Cabaret Voltaire, right up to the jazz-poetry of the Beats and the music of Charlie Parker and John Cage.</p>
<p>If the Fugs were&nbsp;<a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/the-finger-or-bird-is-the-word/">flipping the bird</a>&nbsp;at the status quo, another Greenwich Village band of miscreants, David Peel and the Lower East Side, were sitting back “turning on, tuning in, and dropping out.” The title of their first album&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B015NLSMR8/?tag=slatmaga-20">Have a Marijuana</a></em>&nbsp;(1968) says it all. Actually, it doesn’t. The lyrics do. Founding member Peel (born David Michael Rosario) was a New York–based musician whose raw, acoustic, proto-punk “street rock” was peppered with salty lyrics about sex and drugs, and sex and drugs. That the spelling of the title of his song “I Do My Bawling in the Bathroom” may lead one to infer that it is about crying, listening to the words tells otherwise. When Peel sings that it is also his bedroom, you clearly get the idea that he is not crooning about that kind of bawling.</p>
<p>Like the Fugs, Peel had his beef with authority too, but don’t look for any pithiness here. Take his song “Up Against the Wall.” Add the word <em>motherfucker</em>, and—voil&agrave;—you have all the lyrics to the song (almost). The entire lyrics are: “Up against the wall Motherfuckers! Up against the wall Motherfuckers!” Well, there are also a couple of “La, la, la, la, la, las” thrown in to flesh it out, and it does conclude with a jaunty, “Cha-cha-cha!” Its lilting tone doesn’t even hint at the incendiary source for the phrase. It seems that it may have been initially appeared in print in the poem, “Black People!” by LeRoi Jones (since changed to Amiri Baraka): “The magic words are: Up against the wall, mother fucker, this is a stick up!” This, in turn, was a reference to a phrase supposedly barked by Newark cops to blacks under custody. Cha-cha-cha.</p>
<p>Peel may have been destined for oblivion, but fate took over. With the youth revolution in full swing, he was rediscovered by John Lennon in 1971. Lennon heard Peel when the latter was playing for spare change in New York’s Washington Square Park. Lennon went on to produce&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00WF70TZW/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Pope Smokes Dope</a></em>&nbsp;for Peel. This album was banned in many countries and has since been sought after by collectors worldwide. Peel has gone on to record more than 20 albums. In Jack Milton’s 1972 film&nbsp;<em>Please Stand By</em>, Peel portrayed and starred as a media hippie revolutionary, who hijacked a network television van and jammed the airwaves with unauthorized radical broadcasts to the nation. Naturally. Peel was still at it in 1995 with his mostly live album of&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000008Q57/?tag=slatmaga-20">Up Against the Wall</a></em>. And, in 2013 with his group the Protesters, he joined the fray of the Occupy Wall Street Movement with his protest album&nbsp;<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ELSPHH8/?tag=slatmaga-20">Up Against the Wall Street</a></em>.</p>
<p>While we’re on the subject of being up against the wall, the influence of the phrase and the song was so pervasive that it inspired a group of New York City anarchists<strong>,</strong>&nbsp;artists, and other sundry counterculture curmudgeons to call themselves the Up Against the Wall Motherfuckers (often referred to as simply the “Motherfuckers.” Yippie (Youth International Party) co-founder and self-proclaimed anarchist Abbie Hoffman characterized his crew of radicals as “the middle-class nightmare … an anti-media media phenomenon simply because their name could not be printed.”</p>
<p>This “street gang with analysis” was famous for its Lower East Side direct action and is said to have inspired members of the Weather Underground and the Yippies. Most of the lyrics for the 1969 song <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00137XIGW/?tag=slatmaga-20">“We Can Be Together,”</a> by the San Francisco rock band Jefferson Airplane, were taken virtually word-for-word from a leaflet written by Motherfucker John Sundstrom, and published as “The Outlaw Page” in the avant-garde weekly&nbsp;<em>East Village Other</em>. The lyrics read in part, “We are all outlaws in the eyes of America. In order to survive we steal, cheat, lie, forge, fuck, hide, and deal. … Everything you say we are, we are. … Up Against the Wall, Motherfucker!” Little did the Airplane know that their tune would become a first for American television. It was on&nbsp;<em>The Dick Cavett Show</em>, on Aug. 19, 1969, right after Joni Mitchell sang her lovely “Chelsea Morning,” that Grace Slick belted out the lyrics to “We Can Be Together.” The song marked the first use of the word <em>fuck</em> on U.S. television, when the group played it uncensored. Don’t expect me to tell you how many times it has been echoed since.</p>Thu, 12 May 2016 14:06:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/12/how_the_f_word_was_written_in_1948.htmlRob Chirico2016-05-12T14:06:00ZLifeWhen
<em>F--k</em> Was
<em>Fug</em>241160512001swearingstrong languagecensorshipRob ChiricoLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/12/how_the_f_word_was_written_in_1948.htmlfalsefalsefalse1948: When f--k was “fug”:"Mother-fugger."Screenshot via ClassicPerformances2Still from <em>The Naked and the Dead</em>.Hamilton Through the Lens of Language &nbsp;http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/10/how_lin_manual_miranda_s_hamilton_foregrounds_the_pleasure_and_power_of.html
<p>Sure, the musical <em>Hamilton</em> has racked up a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/05/03/hamilton_breaks_tonys_record_with_16_nominatisn.html">record number of Tony nominations</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/03/14/watch_the_cast_of_hamilton_perform_live_at_the_white_house_video.html">gets props from the first family</a>, and helped keep the “ten-dollar founding father” <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/04/13/thanks_hamilton_fans_you_might_have_just_cost_us_a_woman_on_the_10_bill.html">on the ten-dollar bill</a>. But among the endless accolades, there was one moment that was particularly sweet for those involved in the production: when 1,300 high schoolers from low-income areas of New York City descended on the Richard Rodgers Theatre last month for the first in a series of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/theater/hamilton-inspires-students-and-their-takes-on-history.html">student matinees</a>.</p>
<p>In the morning, students from the 12 participating high schools took the stage to perform their own takes on historical figures from the revolutionary and founding eras, using a curriculum especially designed by the <a href="http://www.gilderlehrman.org/programs-exhibitions/hamilton-education-program">Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History</a>. The show’s playwright and star, Lin-Manuel Miranda, served as emcee along with Christopher Jackson, who plays George Washington, and they were visibly gleeful as the student performers spun their own verbal creations in the form of raps, songs, and poems.</p>
<p>After a Q&amp;A with the cast, the students got to watch a performance that is by far the hottest ticket on Broadway (but only cost them $10 each, thanks to funding from the Rockefeller Foundation). Now it was the students’ turn to be gleeful. One thing was clear from their genuine elation: The students felt a visceral connection to the play, and particularly to the <em>language</em> of the play.</p>
<p><em>Hamilton</em> is, as Jackson told the students, “all about the words.” There are more than 20,000 of them over the course of the play, delivered at a dizzying pace of 144 words per minute, according to a <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hamilton-is-the-very-model-of-a-modern-fast-paced-musical/"><em>FiveThirtyEight</em> analysis</a>. As I observed in the <em><a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-rich-vocabulary-of-hamilton-1460749591">Wall Street Journal</a></em>, that includes some challenging vocabulary, like <em>polymath</em>, <em>obfuscate</em>, <em>protean</em>, and <em>intransigent</em>. The play also quotes directly from primary sources, such as Washington’s Farewell Address. But for the students at the matinee, the language of <em>Hamilton</em> was no stumbling block. Quite the contrary, the attendees I talked to seemed to revel in the play’s verbosity, seeing it as a kind of time machine taking them from their own vernacular to the language of the Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago.</p>
<p>What follows are some glimpses of <em>Hamilton</em> through the lens of language, based on my conversations with some of the people closest to the production, including author and historical consultant Ron Chernow, producer Jeffrey Seller, and cast member Daveed Diggs.</p>
<p><strong>Freestyle Rap Meets Sondheim</strong></p>
<p>The language of <em>Hamilton</em> swings vertiginously from literary to colloquial, from high-flying to down-and-dirty. But at its root, it reflects Lin-Manuel Miranda’s lifelong fascination with the power of words in two seemingly disparate cultures: musical theater and hip-hop.</p>
<p>To get a sense of how Miranda effortlessly bridges these performance styles, it’s worth listening to his <a href="https://publictheater.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/public-forum-podcast-lin-manuel-miranda-on-freestyle-rap-writing-for-neil-patrick-harris-and-who-belongs-on-the-mt-rushmore-of-mcs/">podcast conversation</a> with Public Forum director Jeremy McCarter from June 2013, two years before <em>Hamilton</em>’s debut. At the time, Miranda had seen success with his first musical, <em>In the Heights</em>, and when he wasn’t busy hatching <em>Hamilton</em>, he was performing with the hip-hop improv troupe Freestyle Love Supreme, <a href="http://www.freestylelovesupreme.com/the-crew.html">a crew</a> that included his future Gen. Washington, Christopher Jackson. Miranda breaks down in fascinating detail how he can come up with freestyle rhymes on the fly—a dizzying talent that he would later show off for a national audience on <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/11/07/lin_manuel_miranda_on_fallon_hamilton_creator_battled_the_roots_black_thought.html"><em>The Tonight Show</em></a> and in the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/03/14/president_obama_and_lin_manuel_miranda_just_freestyled_in_the_rose_garden.html">White House Rose Garden</a>.</p>
<p>When McCarter asks him which came first, his love of hip-hop or his love of theater, Miranda responds, “They were one and the same to me. … If you love wordplay, why wouldn’t you love both of these things?” Tellingly, on his list of <a href="https://twitter.com/Lin_Manuel/status/222326207847477250">favorite rappers</a> he makes room for Harold Hill, the patter-slinging con artist from <em>The Music Man.</em> And as he tells McCarter, he has provided something of a rap education to fellow wordplay lover Stephen Sondheim, sharing songs with him that are heavy on verbal pyrotechnics, like Aesop Rock’s “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sClhmDN5Fcs">No Regrets</a>.”</p>
<p>Sondheim was clearly on board with Miranda’s vision in 2011 when he published the book <em><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=dBSr1MLX3hkC&amp;pg=PA2">Look, I Made a Hat</a></em>. “Of all the forms of contemporary pop music, rap is the closest to traditional musical theater (its roots are in vaudeville), both in its vamp-heavy rhythmic drive and in its verbal playfulness,” Sondheim wrote. He lauded Miranda for melding the two forms in <em>In the Heights</em>. “Rap is a natural language for him and he is a master of the form, but enough of a traditionalist to know the way he can utilize its theatrical potential.” Sondheim saw that potential coming to fruition in Miranda’s next project: “a piece about Alexander Hamilton.”</p>
<p><strong>Hamilton, the Man of Words</strong></p>
<p>As is already <em>Hamilton </em>lore, Miranda was inspired to create a hip-hop–infused telling of the life of Alexander Hamilton after reading Ron Chernow’s biography <a href="https://twitter.com/Lin_Manuel/status/610440904453844993">on vacation in Mexico</a> in 2008. When Chernow saw <em>In the Heights </em>later that year, he went backstage and learned of Miranda’s Hamiltonian obsession. Soon they were talking over all things Hamilton at Chernow’s home in Brooklyn Heights.</p>
<p>“My earliest conversations with Lin really revolved around language,” Chernow told me. Miranda viewed Hamilton’s life as a “classic hip-hop narrative”: He was like a rapper who used the power of words to lift his way out of poverty and obscurity and into fame. Miranda “saw Hamilton’s rise as inseparable from his command of language,” Chernow said. Hamilton, the “bastard orphan” immigrant from St. Croix, rose to power on the strength of his words, but his verbal ingenuity was a double-edged sword that also precipitated his downfall.</p>
<p>While Chernow did not initially appreciate how the idiom of hip-hop could be a vehicle for Hamilton’s story, Miranda set about educating him as he had done for Sondheim. Chernow learned two things right away. First, “with hip-hop, you can pack an enormous amount of information into the lyrics,” he said. And second, hip-hop’s reliance on rhyme, both rhymed endings and internal rhymes, allows for all manner of wordplay to delight audiences. Chernow realized that what Miranda was constructing was no less than a return to the verse dramas of an earlier age, when people would “sit all evening listening to rhymed couplets and quatrains,” immersed in the pleasure of language.</p>
<p>Chernow recalls Miranda sitting on the couch, snapping his fingers and performing the first fruits of his labor, a rap he called “The Hamilton Mixtape,” which with a few changes would become the <a href="http://genius.com/Lin-manuel-miranda-alexander-hamilton-lyrics">opening number of the show</a>. “It was the most extraordinary thing I had ever heard,” Chernow said. “He was creating a unique idiom that was a blend of standard 18<sup>th</sup>-century speech and 21<sup>st</sup>-century slang.”</p>
<p>Chernow was struck immediately by the heightened language in the first stanza introducing Hamilton’s story: “by providence, impoverished, in squalor.” And then the second stanza takes a turn for the colloquial, with the “ten-dollar founding father without a father, who got a lot farther by working a lot harder.” “It’s delightful how the language keeps shifting back and forth,” Chernow remarked.</p>
<p>When Miranda unveiled “The Hamilton Mixtape” at the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNFf7nMIGnE">White House Poetry Jam</a> in 2009, he put Hamilton’s linguistic derring-do front and center. “I think he embodies the word’s ability to make a difference,” he said by way of introduction. Of course, Miranda’s own words would prove equally captivating.</p>
<p><strong>An Ingenuitive Performance</strong></p>
<p>As <em>Hamilton</em> morphed into a full-fledged musical, hip-hop ended up being one of many elements in its eclectic mix of performance styles. But it has a pride of place: The characters who are the most quick-witted, such as Hamilton himself and his sister-in-law Angelica Schuyler, spit rapid-fire rhymes that would make the most precocious rapper proud. As Hamilton boasts in “Non-Stop,” “I’ll be Socrates/ Throwing verbal rocks at these mediocrities”—a line that manages to highlight Hamilton’s classical education while <a href="http://genius.com/7908869">echoing</a> similar rhymes from both <em><a href="http://genius.com/Original-broadway-cast-wonderful-annotated">Wicked</a> </em>and the <a href="http://genius.com/46688">Wu-Tang Clan</a>. (See Forrest Wickman’s <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/09/24/hamilton_s_hip_hop_references_all_the_rap_and_r_b_allusions_in_lin_manuel.html">thorough catalog</a> for more of the musical’s allusions to hip-hop and R&amp;B.)</p>
<p>Hamilton often engages in expert wordplay, as when he punnishly turns the words of loyalist Samuel Seabury against him in “<a href="http://genius.com/Lin-manuel-miranda-farmer-refuted-lyrics">Farmer Refuted</a>.” Seabury’s staid message against the Revolution is upended by Hamilton’s counterpoint by means of homophony and assonance: Seabury’s “<em>Heed </em>not the <em>rabble </em>…” is met with Hamilton’s “<em>He’d </em>have you all un<em>ravel</em> …” In the recently published companion book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1455539740/?tag=slatmaga-20">Hamilton: The Revolution</a></em> (known as the Hamiltome to fans), Miranda notes that this kind of linguistic dismantling “felt like the kind of superpower Hamilton could deploy to impress his friends.”</p>
<p>The word from the play that best describes Hamilton is one that you’d be hard-pressed to find in any dictionary: <em>ingenuitive</em>. The Marquis de Lafayette, played by Daveed Diggs, praises Hamilton as “ingenuitive and fluent in French” in the musical’s fastest-paced number (at <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hamilton-is-the-very-model-of-a-modern-fast-paced-musical/">6.3 words per second</a>), “Guns and Ships.” In the companion book, Miranda reveals, “I thought everyone knew this word, yet I don’t know where I’ve heard it.” He and his collaborators argued before deciding to keep it in. “It’s apparently a super-archaic word,” Miranda writes. “I really don’t know where I met it, but it was there for me when I needed it.” It turns out it’s not all that archaic, dating only to <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=ingenuitive&amp;safe=off&amp;source=lnt&amp;tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1875%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F1925&amp;tbm=bks">the turn of the 20<sup>th</sup> century</a> in the written record, but there is no doubt it is <em>le mot juste</em>, as Lafayette might say.</p>
<p>And it is fitting that Diggs-as-Lafayette is the one who gets to use the word. When we first meet Lafayette in “My Shot” at the beginning of Act One, he stumbles over pronouncing the word <em>anarchy</em>, but by the time of “Guns and Ships,” he is, as Miranda puts it, “a speed demon.” His newfound fluency is intended to demonstrate how the character has come into his own as a war hero. “Doesn’t hurt that Daveed is one of the most technically gifted rappers I’ve ever met, so I knew I could build him tapestries,” Miranda writes in the Hamiltome.</p>
<p>Diggs, who also plays Thomas Jefferson in the second act, told me that he connected with the language of the play immediately because of his background in hip-hop. (He is a member of the Los Angeles–based rap trio <a href="http://www.itsclippingbitch.com/">Clipping</a> and also joined with Miranda and Jackson in Freestyle Love Supreme.) “One of the things that hip-hop does really well is it gets the most out of contemporary vernacular. Rappers compress a lot of information into short amounts of time,” he said.</p>
<p>The verbal gymnastics can also convey character development, Diggs observes. Just as Lafayette undergoes a transformation in the first act, Jefferson’s rapping grows more sophisticated in the second. Jefferson is initially bested by Hamilton in two Cabinet confrontations done in the style of rap battles. Eventually, though, he triumphs through the power of words in the song “<a href="http://genius.com/Lin-manuel-miranda-washington-on-your-side-lyrics">Washington on Your Side</a>,” culminating with his resignation as secretary of state: “If Washington isn’t gon’ listen to disciplined dissidents, this is the difference: This kid is out!” Diggs identifies that line as “when we get a real virtuosic rap moment from him.”</p>
<p><strong>Bringing the Language to Students</strong></p>
<p>The plan for student matinees was hatched before <em>Hamilton </em>moved to Broadway, soon after it opened at the Public Theater in early 2015. At one show, Chernow, who attended many performances, spotted Lesley Herrmann, executive director of the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. When he asked what she thought, Herrmann exulted that “this is the greatest opportunity in our lifetime to interest schoolchildren in American history, and we have to take advantage of it,” Chernow recalled.</p>
<p>Chernow introduced Herrmann to <em>Hamilton</em>’s producer, Jeffrey Seller, who was immediately on board with the idea of having the Gilder Lehrman Institute design a curriculum for New York City high school students and getting as many as 20,000 of them to attend matinees. Seller told me he had developed a similar matinee program when he produced <em>Rent</em>, in which students presented performance pieces onstage based on the play’s themes. “It was always my goal to share <em>Hamilton</em> with students,” he said, and he found kindred spirits at Gilder Lehrman, which endeavors to make American history come alive by using primary-source documents.</p>
<p>Seller hoped that <em>Hamilton</em> could serve as a linguistic bridge to reach a diverse audience of young people. “It’s a marvelous barrier breaker, because the language of the play gives us the information we want and need,” he said, adding that it gives students a foundation that allows them to go back to primary sources without being intimidated by antiquated verbiage.</p>
<p>In the lead-up to the first student matinee last month, I got to spend time with teachers and students at Brooklyn’s Fort Hamilton High School, one of the 12 participating schools. (And no, they weren’t selected simply because of their Hamiltonian name.) Using the Gilder Lehrman curriculum, students had come up with performance pieces based on historical figures, fusing linguistic styles on the model of <em>Hamilton</em> but applying their own idiosyncratic stamp.</p>
<p>One Advanced Placement U.S. History student, Hannah Almontaser, delivered a rap as King George III with Kanye-like swagger. Three of her classmates added a dose of Beyonc&eacute; to their “Women Formation,” in which they portrayed Abigail Adams, the black poet Phillis Wheatley, and Hamilton’s wife, Eliza, as proto-feminists.*</p>
<p>At the matinee, 160 students from Fort Hamilton joined with more than 1,000 others from around the city, and the excitement was palpable. Chernow was in attendance and got something of the rock-star treatment from students who asked him to sign their programs, T-shirts, and Hamiltomes.</p>
<p>Afterward, Chernow marveled at how enthusiastically the students engaged with the show and its language. “It was absolutely fascinating to watch what the students responded to,” he said, especially the humor, the romance, and of course the rap battles. The wordiness was hardly an impediment, he noted. “It’s a very sophisticated and erudite show, but I felt they were picking up everything. It didn’t go over the heads.” A vital link had been forged through the power of language: Words can indeed make a difference.</p>
<p><em><strong>*Correction, May 10, 2016: </strong>This post originally misspelled Phillis Wheatley’s first name.</em><br /> </p>Tue, 10 May 2016 12:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/10/how_lin_manual_miranda_s_hamilton_foregrounds_the_pleasure_and_power_of.htmlBen Zimmer2016-05-10T12:30:00ZLifeHow
<em> Hamilton</em> Centers the Power and Pleasure of Language241160510001hamiltonlanguageBen ZimmerLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/10/how_lin_manual_miranda_s_hamilton_foregrounds_the_pleasure_and_power_of.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow Hamilton centers the power and pleasure of language:“He was creating a unique idiom that was a blend of standard eighteenth-century speech and twenty-first century slang.”Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty ImagesLin-Manuel Miranda attends a workshop with students in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on March 14.&nbsp;Shakespeare’s Hipstery Millennial Dream Jobshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/09/shakespeare_s_plays_are_full_of_hipster_jobs_like_skinker_ostler_and_headman.html
<p>A self-employed craftsman who worked from home in a rustic, minimalist studio? Shakespeare’s dad, John, lived the hipster’s dream. He was a glover by trade, and perhaps the inspiration for <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=romeojuliet&amp;keyword1=glove&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">Romeo’s swoon at the first radiant sight of Juliet</a>: “O, that I were a glove upon that hand,/ That I might touch that cheek!”</p>
<p>Shakespeare may not have followed in his father’s artisanal footsteps, but he incorporated a raft of now-<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Universal_British_Directory_of_Trade.html?id=UQwHAAAAQAAJ">trendy-sounding DIY occupations</a> into his plays. Meet the apple-selling <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=henry4p2&amp;Act=1&amp;Scene=2&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=486%23486">costermonger</a>, a job enterprising millennials might salivate over. The Induction to the <em>Taming of the Shrew</em>, in which a confused drunkard explains how he eked out a living on the mean cobblestone streets of 16<sup>th</sup>-century England, <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=tamingshrew&amp;keyword1=cardmaker&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">adds to the vocational array</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Am I not Christopher Sly – old Sly’s son of Burton Heath, by birth a pedlar, by education a cardmaker, by transmutation a bearherd, and now by present profession a tinker?
</blockquote>
<p>A <em>pedlar</em>, or peddler, sold small goods (and continues to do so). The much less familiar <em>cardmaker</em> made metal combs used to spin wool. A <em>bearherd</em> kept bears, some for the notorious entertainment of bearbaiting. Historically, a <em>tinker</em> mended kitchenwares, like pots and utensils. (This may revise your understanding of <em>Peter Pan</em>’s Tinkerbell.)</p>
<p>Sly then begs his audience to verify his identity with the “alewife.” An <em>alewife</em> was not the significant other of a hopeless lush; she ran a tavern. <em>Wife</em> once referred, sometimes disparagingly, to women of humble employment.</p>
<p>These hyperspecific occupations often occur in comedic contexts with lower-class characters. Shakespeare’s theatergoers surely laughed at the rabble—but also identified with it. <em>Julius Caesar</em> opens with a cobbler who punningly describes himself as “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=juliuscaesar&amp;keyword1=soles&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">a mender of bad soles</a>.” A Welsh general in <em>Henry V</em> <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=henry5&amp;keyword1=woodmonger&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">reprimands a hotheaded soldier</a>: “You shall be a woodmonger, and buy nothing of me but cudgels.” <em>Monger</em> meant “merchant” in earlier English, and survives in the <em>cheesemonger</em> or <em>fishmonger</em> at your local farmer’s market; today, it sees more metaphorical business in, say, <em>warmonger</em>. So, like a timber trader, the soldier will acquire only cudgels—blows from a thick wooden club—from his general.</p>
<p>In moments of darker humor, <em>The Comedy of Errors</em> features a <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=comedyerrors&amp;keyword1=headsman&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">headsman</a>, a diabolically frank term for “executioner,” and a “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=comedyerrors&amp;keyword1=rope-maker&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">ropemaker</a>,” whose wares could be used for similar ends. There are few jokes in the gruesome tragedy <em>Titus Andronicus</em>, but a clown does mistake “Jupiter” for a “<a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=titus&amp;keyword1=gibbet-maker&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">gibbet-maker</a>,” or gallows builder.</p>
<p>The many characters, settings, plots, and languages of <em>Henry IV</em> turn this two-part history into a veritable archive of daily life in Elizabethan England. We meet <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=henry4p1&amp;keyword1=ostler&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">ostlers</a>, who looked after the horses of guests at inns. We meet <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=henry4p2&amp;Act=2&amp;Scene=4&amp;Scope=scene&amp;LineHighlight=1654%231654">victuallers</a>, who ran taverns. And, as a young Prince Hal revels with common thieves, whores, and drunks in a London tavern, we meet those who draw pints of beer: <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=henry4p1&amp;keyword1=drawer&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">drawers</a>.</p>
<p>No job title quite rivals <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=henry4p1&amp;keyword1=under-skinker&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">the position Harry references</a> when speaking to a companion, Ned, at an inn:</p>
<blockquote>
But, sweet Ned–to sweeten which name of Ned I give thee this pennyworth of sugar, clapped even now into my hand by an underskinker, one that never spake other English in this life that ‘Eight shillings and sixpence’, and ‘You are welcome’, with his shrill addition, ‘Anon, anon, sir! Score a pint of bastard in the Half-moon!’ or so.
</blockquote>
<p><em>Underskinker</em>: This was an assistant to the <em>skinker</em>, or <a href="http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/search/search-results.php?link=con&amp;searchtype=exact&amp;works%5B%5D=henry4p2&amp;keyword1=tapster&amp;sortby=WorkName&amp;pleasewait=1&amp;msg=sr">tapster</a>, who helped draw, pull out, and serve booze. To <em>skink</em> is a Dutch-derived term for “to pour alcohol.” Lounge lizard, apparently, was a profession in Shakespeare’s day.</p>
<p>Today’s workforce is far more specialized than John the Glover could ever have imagined. We have assistant directors, general managers, vice presidents, sales associates, chief financial officers, and new business developers. Interestingly, many modern titles derive from French and Latin, the two languages upon which English drew most heavily for its vocabulary of government, administration, law, math, and science. Though they sound more official, these titles also feel more abstract, unlike the unpretentiously concrete <em>underskinker</em>. Maybe we are drawn to the glover today because we know exactly what a glover does.</p>
<p>We often poke fun at “hipsters” for their attraction to the artisanal and the handcrafted. But what if these millennial milliners are simply seeking a meaningful and tangible connection to their work? Let’s give some of our modern roles a Shakespearean makeover. You’re not a computer programmer; you’re a codemonger. You’re not a copy editor; you’re a wordtinker. You’re not a principal; you’re an overteacher.</p>
<p>The Bard is often our go-to when we’re in love, in mourning, or in extremis. It’s only fitting that we might turn to him to inspire us on the job as well.&nbsp;</p>Mon, 09 May 2016 13:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/09/shakespeare_s_plays_are_full_of_hipster_jobs_like_skinker_ostler_and_headman.htmlJohn Kelly2016-05-09T13:30:00ZLifeShakespeare’s Hipstery Millennial Dream Jobs241160509001shakespeareJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/09/shakespeare_s_plays_are_full_of_hipster_jobs_like_skinker_ostler_and_headman.htmlfalsefalsefalseOn Shakespeare's hipstery millennial dream jobs:Skinker. Ostler. Headman.Adam Berry/Getty ImagesShakespeare's craftspeople were living the hipster dream. Above, a woman attends the Hipster Olympics on July 21, 2012, in Berlin.Poetry Served, but Music Shined at the Academy of American Poets’ Star-Studded Galahttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/06/the_academy_of_american_poets_hosted_matthew_weiner_amy_ryan_and_regina.html
<p>Early on the evening of April 27, a crowd began to gather outside Lincoln Center’s Alice Tully Hall. The hundreds gliding into the lobby looked refined in evening wear, neat sports coats and bright silks, ready for a night at the theater. A ginger sense of anticipation hung over the crowd, and as lines to enter formed, people began to look around expectantly, hoping to glimpse a famous face. “No, <em>after</em> it’s over, <em>then</em> they come out,” one man explained to his party.</p>
<p>They had come, surprisingly, for poetry. But they had also come for the special celebrity guests. Organized by the Academy of American Poets, “<a href="https://www.poets.org/academy-american-poets/programs/poetry-creative-mind">Poetry &amp; The Creative Mind</a>” is a yearly benefit held at Lincoln Center. It springs from a simple yet captivating idea: famous nonpoets reading poems that they love. It’s also a windfall for the nonprofit. Now in its 14<sup>th</sup> year, the benefit annually brings in $175,000 for the academy’s educational programming.</p>
<p>The readers everyone had come to see were an impressive range of artists, but few were closely linked to poetry. Besides Eileen Huang, a national student poet, and academy chancellor Elizabeth Alexander, who served as master of ceremonies, the rest were from varied disciplines: food writer Ruth Reichl, artist Lesley Dill, blogger Maria Popova, composer Mohammed Fairouz, singer Regina Spektor, choreographer Bill T. Jones, actress Amy Ryan, <em>Mad Men </em>creator Matthew Weiner, and singer Paul Simon.</p>
<p>“We are here together because poetry matters and always has,” Alexander announced in her opening remarks. This statement is indelibly true, yet it’s also something that advocates of poetry are perpetually saying; it has the whiff of disbelief about it. Alexander went on to use an oft-exploited metaphor: that poetry is like song. “We are always aspiring to song when we write poems,” she said. “There is a song in you when you sing and when you read a poem.” Poetry indeed comes from the same classical roots as music, and they share many of the same characteristics. However, the equation ignores an evident fact about America today: Music sells, while poetry struggles to find an audience. Allying poetry with a more popular form, especially at a fundraiser, is a sound business proposition.</p>
<p>Soon it was time for the poems. The readers chose a diverse set. Ruth Reichl, fittingly, read three poems <a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/eating-together">about food</a>, with an anecdote about the poet Sharon Olds coming over for dinner. Lesley Dill read <a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/alphabet-mother-language">Anne Waldman</a>, <a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/blueprint">Tom Sleigh</a>, and <a href="http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/56453">Emily Dickinson</a>, poets who have inspired her own art. Maria Popova gave excellent readings of poems by <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1996/szymborska-poems-4-e.html">Wislawa Szymborska</a>, <a href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/04/24/cheryl-strayed-adrienne-rich-power/">Adrienne Rich</a>, <a href="https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/04/21/love-after-love-derek-walcott/">Derek Walcott</a>, and <a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/wont-you-celebrate-me">Lucille Clifton</a>, adding a slightly more overt political engagement than most of the evening’s selections.</p>
<p>A danger when many nonpoets (and especially actors) read poems is that they outperform the work: Rather than seeking out what is inherent in the material and placing that front and center, they put themselves in competition with the text, making it a platform for their own elocution. (The one actor in the evening’s program, Amy Ryan, overcame this hurdle with understated readings of poems by <a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/basket-figs">Ellen Bass</a> and <a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/imaginary-morning-glory">C.D. Wright</a>.) On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who read a poem aloud as if it were a newspaper article or a Facebook post: all content, little to no form. In these cases the reader is expecting the poem to lift up listeners to a place of aesthetic attention (what academy director Jen Benka referred to as “a centering experience with language”) without giving the poem what it needs and deserves: space, silence to frame it and lace through it, and the true attention of the speaker’s mouth to the individual sounds of words.</p>
<p>As a result, it was interesting to see whose performances worked best. Matthew Weiner, reading Elizabeth Bishop’s “<a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/moose">The Moose</a>” and Mark Strand’s “The Door,” was ultimately flat in his delivery: He could have been reading basically any text. (He received tremendous applause, however, when he gave an impassioned defense of the humanities.) Regina Spektor read vastly different poems, but brought the audience to her with a disarming and intimate delivery. Wallace Stevens’ “<a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/tea-palaz-hoon">Tea at the Palaz of Hoon</a>” (“Out of my mind the golden ointment rained,/ And my ears made the blowing hymns they heard”) felt lavish but elusive, while Jeffrey McDaniel’s playful “<a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/compulsively-allergic-truth">Compulsively Allergic to the Truth</a>” got an enthusiastic clap from the audience. Spektor smiled softly as the applause died down. “I didn’t write it,” she said conspiratorially.</p>
<p>As the evening drew to a close, the importance of poetry felt indisputable. But “Poetry &amp; The Creative Mind” also suggests that we often need another art form to help us out, to combat the common fear that poetry is obscure or intractable. Throughout the benefit, music still held pride of place. Halfway through the program, it was Mohammed Fairouz’s setting of a poem by Mahmoud Darwish for clarinet and voice that brought the audience back to attention. (Fairouz’s reading—of Seamus Heaney and his own translation of the Darwish poem—was arguably the best of the night.) Bill T. Jones received great applause, but it wasn’t for the way he read the poems: It was more about his beautiful physicality and his a cappella blues singing between selections. The poems he chose to read—by <a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/nothing-stays-put">Amy Clampitt</a>, <a href="https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/witchgrass-audio-only">Louise Gl&uuml;ck</a>, and <a href="http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/42611">Countee Cullen</a>—were only a footnote to his virtuosity.&nbsp;</p>
<p>And then there was Paul Simon. Dressed in an open black button-up and a light blue suit, Simon kept quiet and contracted throughout the readings. With his small frame and the suggestion of frailty, he gave the feeling of a monk conserving energy, hardly moving. When he finally approached the microphone, he delivered Stanley Kunitz’s “<a href="http://poem-of-the-week.blogspot.com/2009/04/long-boat-by-stanley-kunitz.html">The Long Boat</a>” directly and without flash. Then the evening culminated: Simon strapped on his guitar and played “American Tune.” Hearing a master perform a classic, the audience erupted in a standing ovation; Kunitz’s piece—a modest vision of accepting one’s fate—was almost entirely forgotten. It was a song, not a poem, that brought the house down.</p>
<p>On their way out, the audience made small talk but didn’t have much to say about the evening’s bill of fare. Poetry is still poetry, and many seemed flustered when asked to talk about it, as if they might reveal what they didn’t quite “get.” “Did you enjoy it?” someone asked their date. “You’re deeper than I am.” Fortunately, there was a VIP reception to follow, where cocktails and access to the readers served as distractions. Matthew Weiner was in his element by the bar, affable and surrounded. Lesley Dill stayed back from the throng and spoke humbly about her duty to the poems and poets she read. (Poetry often appears <a href="http://www.lesleydill.net/recent-work/">directly</a> in her artistic practice.) While signing autographs, Regina Spektor discussed her poetic influences. A Soviet &eacute;migr&eacute;, she had been a Pushkin fanatic when she was younger. (“I think I’ve read everything by him—prose, poetry, everything. I was obsessed.”) But her preferences now run to songwriter-poets: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1890447048/?tag=slatmaga-20">David Berman</a>, formerly of the Silver Jews (“<em>Actual Air</em> is my favorite!”) and Vladimir Vysotsky (“the poetry hero of the Soviet times”). A woman in a brightly colored dress came up and handed her a brightly colored paper. “I wrote a haiku for your shoes,” she said, smiled, and retreated.&nbsp;</p>Fri, 06 May 2016 14:45:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/06/the_academy_of_american_poets_hosted_matthew_weiner_amy_ryan_and_regina.htmlJay Deshpande2016-05-06T14:45:00ZLifePoetry Served, but Music Shined at the Academy of American Poets’ Star-Studded Gala241160506001poetryJay DeshpandeLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/06/the_academy_of_american_poets_hosted_matthew_weiner_amy_ryan_and_regina.htmlfalsefalsefalsePoetry served, but music shined at the Academy of American Poets' star-studded gala:Allying poetry with a more popular form, especially at a fundraiser, is a sound business proposition.Jennifer TrahanMaria Popova reads at the Academy of American Poets' annual gala at Lincoln Center.Why This Copy Editor Will Capitalize Your Name Whether You Like It or Nothttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/05/why_do_magazines_like_slate_insist_on_capitalizing_danah_boyd_bell_hooks.html
<p>Last month the National Weather Service <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/11/national_weather_service_to_end_all_caps_weather_forecasts.html">made the long-overdue decision</a> to cease delivering its forecasts entirely in capital letters. (Its all-caps screeds were relics of a time when weather reports were sent by teleprinter.) As the <a href="http://www.noaa.gov/national-weather-service-will-stop-using-all-caps-its-forecasts">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notes in its announcement</a>, “[I]n web speak, use of capital letters became synonymous with angry shouting.” Online, we type in all caps when we’re enraged—ARE YOU SERIOUS?!—or overjoyed—YESSSSSSS—or amused—LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.</p>
<p>It’s not just online or in all-caps constructions that capital letters carry emotional weight. Elsewhere, we capitalize words to give them gravity. Capitalization elevates nouns from common to proper: It’s not just a white house; it’s the White House. We don’t simply live in a collection of some united states, but in the United States. Charles Dickens didn’t just write a tale about a couple of cities; he wrote <em>A Tale of Two Cities</em>—and for that matter, Charles Dickens isn’t charles dickens, but Charles Dickens. Capital letters set these words apart and demarcate their uniqueness. There are many white houses but only one White House. There are millions of charles but only one Charles Dickens.</p>
<p>Of course this is but one way we use capital letters, which are seemingly one of the simpler stylistic choices in the English language. As Bryan A. Garner notes in his grammarians’ gospel <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Garners-Modern-American-Usage-Garner/dp/0195382757"><em>Modern American Usage</em></a>, “The decision whether to capitalize a word seems simple at first. There are really just three rules: capitalize the first word of a sentence, the pronoun <em>I</em>, and proper names. What could be easier?”</p>
<p>But beneath this elementary rule lies a complex web of exceptions and stylistic politics. Or as Garner puts it: “Then the ‘yeah-but’ bug bites.” We capitalize the Supreme Court, for instance, and on subsequent reference some (including <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/behind_the_scenes/2015/08/stylebook_for_slate_help_us_break_from_ap_style_regarding_tase_bce_or_court.html"><strong><em>Slate</em></strong> staff writer Mark Joseph Stern</a>) would say we should call it the <em>Court</em>. But in that second reference, we’ve passed from the proper back to the common and it’s once again a court, at least according to <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s in-house style rules. Garner cites other examples: Why is <em>Stone Age</em> capitalized but <em>space age</em> not? <em>October</em> stands at attention but <em>autumn</em> lies low. It was the <em>Roaring Twenties</em> but the <em>golden age of radio</em>. In German, all nouns are capitalized! For the most part, these are questions of style and consistency with little ultimate consequence beyond the copy desk. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Occasionally, however, capitalization becomes political—and I mean truly political, beyond the fraught internal politics and <a href="https://jacobian.org/writing/descriptivists-and-prescriptivists/">meta-dramas</a> of grammar sticklers. In 2010 Jon Lackman <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2010/11/capital_embellishment.html">wrote in <strong><em>Slate</em></strong></a> about how Tea Party members favored capitalizing common nouns to pay homage to the Constitution and associate themselves with the Founding Fathers.</p>
<p>While some lean on excess capitalization, others shy from it entirely: When Gloria Jean Watkins took on a pen name, she chose to style it as <em>bell hooks</em>, sans initial capital letters, in order to draw attention to her work rather than herself. “When the feminist movement was at its zenith in the late 60’s and early 70’s, there was a lot of moving away from the idea of the person. It was: let’s talk about the ideas behind the work, and the people matter less,” she said <a href="http://commonstruggle.org/bellhooks">in a 2012 interview</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps most famously, modernist poet E.E. Cummings eschewed capitalization in many of his poems, often downgrading the word <em>i—</em><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=wpkDRPueLiMC&amp;pg=PR9&amp;lpg=PR9&amp;dq=e.e.+cummings+small+eye+poet&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=Ke9BhiF9Ud&amp;sig=r3_eKOn7e4LqKBSYyKioGeHsPTM&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjM2onswLzMAhXFpB4KHVYGB40Q6AEIWDAJ#v=onepage&amp;q=e.e.%20cummings%20small%20e">“I’m a small eye poet,” he once wrote</a><em>—</em>and occasionally signing his name in lowercase. This stance became so entwined with his persona that his name is often rendered <em>e.e. cummings </em>and an entire apocryphal story about his name change persists <a href="https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120615051559AA92nQs">online</a> and in <a href="https://cummingsatsilverlake.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/cummingscartoon.jpg">our collective conscious</a>. (<a href="http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/cummings/caps.htm">His wife insisted this never happened.</a>)</p>
<p>Cummings’ stance against capitalizing his own name may be a myth, but in the years since, others have chosen, like Gloria Jean Watkins, to take on lowercased pen or stage names—<em>k.d. lang</em>, <em>eden ahbez, will.i.am.—</em>for various reasons. To draw attention away from the self and toward one’s work, yes, but also to free oneself from the confines of an elitist linguistic tradition that has left these individuals feeling othered. Some have gone as far as to legally change their names; social media scholar and activist <em>danah boyd</em> comes to mind. “[I]t’s <em>my</em> name and i should be able to frame it as i see fit, as my adjective, not someone else’s,” <a href="http://www.danah.org/name.html">she writes</a> on her website as part of an explanation of the personal and political reasons for her name change.</p>
<p>Names are, indeed, highly personal and individual things, and I don’t deny that they can wield great power. They’ve been the vessel through which our <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/america-is-still-a-patriarchy/265428/">patriarchal society</a> has traveled; they’ve been <a href="https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1338404929/inline">bestowed by slavers</a> and <a href="http://www.lingref.com/cpp/acal/35/paper1301.pdf">reclaimed by the once-enslaved</a>; they’ve <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/12/11/racism_in_the_classroom_when_even_our_names_are_not_our_own/">segregated us</a>; they’ve united us; and they’ve been the battleground on which many a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/a-short-history-of-hillary-rodham-clintons-name/418029/">feminist victory was won</a>.</p>
<p>But in standard print, capitalizing these proper names is not an act of violence nor of authoritarianism nor of betrayal. It is simply an attempt at clarity. “Capitalization is part of the social convention for writing English,” <a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001809.html">writes Bill Poser at the Language Log</a>. When a reader opens up an article or a blog post here at <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> or elsewhere, she does so with the expectation that it will conform to these “social conventions” of written English—certain norms and syntactic cues that will help digest the information therein as easily as possible. Capitalization is one of those cues. When I capitalize <em>Danah Boyd</em> or <em>Bell Hooks</em>, it’s not meant as an affront on those women but as an overture to the reader.</p>
<p>That’s not to say I would ever prescribe to them how they should sign their own names or monogram their bath towels or print up their own business cards, but in the public square that is the news media, we’ve all agreed to play by certain rules. And now even the National Weather Service is on board. Next up: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbiFcPhccu8">the</a> <a href="http://www.ournameisfun.com/">music</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV8eiSA4vqc">industry</a>.</p>Thu, 05 May 2016 19:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/05/why_do_magazines_like_slate_insist_on_capitalizing_danah_boyd_bell_hooks.htmlAbby McIntyre2016-05-05T19:00:00ZLifeWhy This Copy Editor Will Capitalize Your Name Whether You Like It or Not241160505001languageAbby McIntyreLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/05/why_do_magazines_like_slate_insist_on_capitalizing_danah_boyd_bell_hooks.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy this copy editor will capitalize your name whether you like it or not:It's not an act of violence, authoritarianism, or betrayal. It is simply an attempt at clarity.Anna Webber/Getty Images for DoveDanah Boyd (not danah boyd) in conversation during a Dove + Twitter SXSW Event on March 12 in Austin, Texas.&nbsp;Why Do We Delete the Initial Pronoun From Our Sentences? Glad You Asked.http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/04/all_your_questions_about_pronoun_deletion_and_the_inexorable_death_of_the.html
<p>Something has been mysteriously absent from many of my recent emails: me. <em>Hope all is well with you</em>, I write, conveniently erasing myself as the subject of the sentence. <em>Agree with Bob’s critiques. Would love to read a post on this. Can do in an hour. Look forward to reading</em>.</p>
<p>Wherefore the shyness, the equivocation? Was I too busy to report for duty as a grammatical element in these statements? Was I pretending to a kind of universal authority by recusing myself? <em>The eternal star systems in their metagalactic repose look forward to reading.</em> And what of the messages in which I dropped the second person? <em>Want to email the publicist? </em>Did I hope not to symbolically conscript the recipient of the message into emailing the publicist, even though I really did need him to email the publicist? (He emailed the publicist; it was fine.) Or was I attempting to seem less grandiose, more briskly no-frills, more collaborative? Omitting the opening pronoun is not unlike leaving off an assertion’s end punctuation, as if to humbly suggest that your thoughts don’t rise to the level of a complete sentence.</p>
<p>Linguists, who call the axing of pronouns from the start of a statement “conversational deletion,” classify it as an expedient form of <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2015/10/29/how_to_use_an_ellipsis_examples_from_the_great_gatsby_james_joyce_t_s_eliot.html">ellipsis</a>, or the scraping away of words that are nevertheless understood in context. For them, it’s a matter of convenience, but also destiny. To read theoretical accounts of deletion is to confront a natural or geologic history of language. In his dissertation <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Shouldn_t_Ignore_These_Strings.html?id=_7chmgEACAAJ"><em>Shouldn’t Ignore These Strings: A Study of Conversational Deletion</em></a><em>, </em>Randolph H. Thrasher Jr. conjures a kind of ecological precariousness, explaining that “whatever is exposed (in sentence initial position) can be swept away. If erosion of the first element exposes another vulnerable element, this too may be eroded. The process continues until a hard (non-vulnerable) element is encountered.” The nonvulnerable words here—the verbs, the proper nouns—are rocks, crucial to making the sentence express what it wants to express. The initial pronouns are sand, washed away by caprice and intuition. The natural laws of language demand no more than that statements discard their superfluous elements, especially in informal speech. But on a rainy or otherwise melancholy morning, one can dream on the wastes of millennia and hear, beneath the patter of dropped <em>I</em>'s and <em>you</em>'s, a <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/837379-to-set-one-s-name-to-a-work-gives-no-one">more Sebaldian tale</a> of recorded meaning under siege from a coldly entropic universe: “To set one’s name to a work gives no one a title to be remembered, for who knows how many of the best of men have gone without a trace? The iniquity of oblivion blindly scatters her poppyseed and when wretchedness falls upon us one summer’s day like snow, all we wish for is to be forgotten.”</p>
<p>With deletion, the subject of the sentence is rarely forgotten (or mistaken), just submerged. In a lot of languages, you don’t need to include her because she is revealed by how you conjugate the verb. This holds far less true in English, but we can still often figure out the grammatical agent from context, and razor away the needless words. Eliminating any remaining ambiguity is one reason Brits frequently “tag” their subjectless sentences with <a href="http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/sts.pdf">clarifying end-clauses</a>: “Fooled you, <em>did</em> <em>he</em>?” “Arsed it up, <em>didn’t I</em>?”</p>
<p>In a 2012 <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2F9994_AC9683C5F51128B995B9ED83377EA908_journals__ELL_ELL16_01_S136067431100030Xa.pdf&amp;cover=Y&amp;code=8d2a6a69d5e8e4f514e1b68b258da7cd">paper</a> for the journal <em>English Language and Linguistics</em>, Andrew Weir finds that conversational deletion (he terms it “left-edge deletion”) shows up disproportionately in “certain registers of written English,” such as diaries. “Walked the dog,” we’ll scribble in a journal, notating the melody of our days rather than attempting to score for full orchestra. The first entry in Helen Fielding’s novel <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0141000198/?tag=slatmaga-20">Bridget Jones’s Diary</a> </em>includes the lament: “Cannot quite believe I am once again starting the year in a single bed in my parents’ house.”</p>
<p>Tossing out pronouns helped Fielding approximate the rhythms of diary keeping, a practice at once informal, staccato, and impressionistic. The device also has a comic effect, sparking the efficiency of truncated expression against the unruliness of Bridget’s life and feelings. For George H.W. Bush, delivering his “Thousand Points of Light” <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_points_of_light">speech</a> at the 1988 convention, deletion burnished his everyman persona. “We moved to west Texas 40 years ago,” he said, in an address penned by Peggy Noonan. “The war was over, and we wanted to get out and make it on our own. Those were exciting days. Lived in a little shotgun house, one room for the three of us. Worked in the oil business, started my own.”</p>
<p>Bush comes off as plainspoken and straight-shooting, possessed of the political elixir of authenticity. If deletion means disavowing the unnecessary, he’s the kind of simple and succinct talker who won’t waste your time with verbal ornament; also, by not specifying the pronoun, he allows listeners to imagine themselves into the sentence and experience his past as universal. But here, ellipsis also gently reveals its deceptive potential. At what point does the “we” implied by “lived in a little shotgun house” transform into the “I” who “worked in the oil business”—much less the far more rare “I” who “started my own”? How painlessly Bush’s communal subject—“all three of us”—slips into an individual set of circumstances, incentives, and desires. (Story of politics.)</p>
<p>What’s the sum-total effect of such omissions on communication? The tonal after-image of deletion can be tough to bring into focus. Does leaving out the first-person subject combat an “I” statement’s egoism, or is it <em>more </em>egoistic to assume that a reader will automatically attribute unspecified actions to the writer? When a friend responds to my margarita overture with “would like,” is she so unenthused she can’t bring herself to type the pronoun, or reaffirming our closeness with a casual—and thus “authentic”—yes? The co-worker who replies “not sure what you mean” to a DM: Is he softening his skepticism by keeping things conversational, or giving it fangs by universalizing it?</p>
<p>Then there is the Twitter fashion of festooning images of the latest bandana’d puppy or baroquely appointed burger with a disembodied “crave” or “want.” Perhaps these tags—“verbs from nowhere,” one colleague calls them—tap into the generic desires of the human species; perhaps the users are simply managing their limited character count; perhaps they’re just angling for a retweet. (On reblogging and reposting platforms, missives that aren’t tied to individuals <a href="https://twitter.com/thelindywest/status/727539772147683328">get the most social play</a>.)</p>
<p>Still more studies <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=DKXqCAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PR1&amp;lpg=PR1&amp;dq=thomas+roeper+universal+grammar+and+american+sign+language&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=xWZQNDANg0&amp;sig=38_Bi8w9QUUcGnNMBi5FoxZrK7U&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiXpa6Ww7zMAhXDJR4KHQJNBMAQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&amp;q=thomas%20roeper%20universal%20grammar%20and%20american%20sign%20language&amp;f=false">discover conversational deletion in children’s talk</a>: “Want blankie!” “Going potty.” And the tic, participating in a kind of linguistic skeuomorphism, revives a shorthand familiar from telegraphs, walkie-talkies, and other forms of technological communication. This lends it a retro charm.</p>
<p>Given all this, I can’t bring myself to rage against the cashiering of pronouns, even if their extinction, per Sebald, is of a piece with the world’s slow slide into death. (Probably not the tone your boss was going for with her cheery “Glad to hear it!”) As we grow older, we pare away all but the glowing pith of life. Language has to age too. And it’s nice to see the “nonvulnerable elements”—the actions and places and objects around us—lingering, grammatically at least, after we’ve gone.</p>Wed, 04 May 2016 13:00:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/04/all_your_questions_about_pronoun_deletion_and_the_inexorable_death_of_the.htmlKaty Waldman2016-05-04T13:00:00ZLifeWhy Do We Delete the Initial Pronoun From Our Sentences? Glad You Asked.241160504001languagelinguisticsKaty WaldmanLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/04/all_your_questions_about_pronoun_deletion_and_the_inexorable_death_of_the.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy do we sometimes delete the initial pronoun from our sentences? Glad you asked!To set one’s name to a work gives no one a title to be remembered, for who knows how many of the best of men have gone without a trace? The iniquity of oblivion blindly scatters her poppyseed and when wretchedness falls upon us one summer’s day like snow, all we wish for is to be forgotten.”Matt Cardy/Getty ImagesThe initial pronouns are sand, washed away by caprice and intuition.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Celebrating the Bard’s Crudest Momentshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/02/crude_language_in_shakespeare_s_henry_iv_part_1_and_part_2.html
<p><em>This <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/four-hundreds-later-the-bards-pizzle-is-still-nice-and-stiff/">post</a> originally appeared on <a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/">Strong Language</a>, a sweary blog about swearing.&nbsp;</em></p>
<p>Four hundred years ago, Shakespeare shuffled off this mortal coil. Across the globe, bardolators are observing the date—if not the whole month, nay, year—with various celebrations of his momentous legacy. Meanwhile, you might find some tortured high-schoolers and scholars of, you know, other Elizabethan playwrights celebrating his actual death.</p>
<p>I thought I’d honor Stratford’s greatest son (deal with it, millennials-upon-Avon) by celebrating not his loftiest lines but some of his crudest,&nbsp;<a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/tag/shakespeare/">as I have been periodically doing on Strong Language</a>. I can think of no better work for the special occasion than his two-part history,&nbsp;<em>Henry IV</em>. From prostitutes in London taverns to magicking rebels in Wales, Shakespeare dizzies us with a rich array of characters, settings, and voices in&nbsp;<em>Henry IV, Part 1</em>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>Part 2</em>. Nothing, though, quite stands out like the sleazing, boozing, and wheezing Sir John Falstaff—and not just for his size. The fat knight’s girth yields some larger-than-life mirth, if we look to some the insults his companions throw at the “fat-kidneyed rascal” (<em>1H4</em>&nbsp;2.2.6).</p>
<p>The madcap youth who matures into a heroic king, Prince Harry alone issues some of the most unprincely—and sorry, Falstaff, memorable—abuses of his friend. Catching Falstaff falsifying fortitude after Harry pranks him during a highway robbery, Harry jibes: “These lies are like their father that begets them–gross as a mountain, open, palpable. Why, thou clay-brained guts, thou knotty-pated fool, thou whoreson obscene greasy tallow-catch—” (<em>1H4</em>&nbsp;2.5.208-11). As my&nbsp;<em>Norton Shakespeare&nbsp;</em>helpfully<em>&nbsp;</em>glosses it, a “tallow-catch” is a lump of animal fat that butchers collected for candle-making.</p>
<p>But Falstaff can give just as good as he gets, proving himself not quite so “fat-witted with drinking of old sack,” a Spanish white wine (1.2.2). Falstaff answers Harry’s attacks on his weight by ridiculing Harry’s lack thereof: “‘Sblood, you starveling, you elf-skin, you dried neat’s tongue, you bull’s pizzle, you stock-fish–O, for breath to utter what is like thee!–you tailor’s yard, you sheath, you bow-case, you vile standing tuck–” (2.5.226-29).&nbsp;Falstaff, in so many colorful words, literally calls Harry a dick.&nbsp;<em>‘Sblood</em>&nbsp;was a&nbsp;<a href="https://stronglang.wordpress.com/tag/minced-oaths/">minced oath</a>&nbsp;for “God’s blood,” which Elizabethan playwrights, among others,&nbsp;<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sIGsBwAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA63&amp;lpg=PA63&amp;dq=minced+oath+sblood&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=_BNa-0Ajkx&amp;sig=lRPcCdKKg-8dL2fixZKH67FDzLQ&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiMiIu7waLMAhVH2hoKHfqSDTsQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&amp;q=minced%20oath%20sblood&amp;f=false">employed in part to evade censorship</a>, here, against profaning Christian holy names.</p>
<p>Earlier, you’ll be entertained to note, Falstaff calls Harry and an associate, Poins, disguised as thieves during the highway robbery: “Ah, whoreson caterpillars, bacon-fed knaves!…Hang ye, gorbellied knaves…, ye fat chuffs” (2.3.76-80).</p>
<p>But for all of Falstaff’s zingers, Harry’s just getting warmed up. Later in the riotous tavern scene, the profane pair take turns play-acting as king. Addressing Falstaff as if he’s prince, Harry sets his tallow-catch on fire:</p>
<blockquote>
Thou art violently carried away from grace. There is a devil that haunts thee in the likeness of an old fat man; a tun of a man in thy companion. Why dost thou converse with that trunk of humours, that bolting-hutch of beastliness, that swollen parcel of dropsies, that huge bombard of sack, that stuffed cloak-bag of guts, that roasted Manningtree ox with the pudding in his belly, that reverend Vice, that grey Iniquity, that father Ruffian, that Vanity in Years? Wherein is he good, but to taste sack and drink it? Wherein neat and cleanly, but&nbsp; to carve capon and eat it? Wherein cunning, but in craft? Where in villainy? Wherein villainous, but in all things? Wherein worthy, but in nothing? (2.5.407-18)
</blockquote>
<p>Just who’s getting “carried away,” Harry? Zounds (another minced oath, for “by God’s wounds,”<em>&nbsp;</em>the Bard enjoyed). I’d provide glosses for this passage, but I think Harry gets his point across.</p>
<p>Enjoy&nbsp;Harry’s epic smackdown in the Globe’s 2010 production (jump to ~9:45, though I recommend the whole scene):&nbsp;</p>
<p>In&nbsp;<em>Henry IV, Part 2</em>, we behold a newly crowned Harry, Henry V, issue the ultimate insult to his Falstaff: outright rejection. (It’s the fat knight, it seems to me, who should be rejecting the reformed king, if Harry’s outsized put-downs are any measure.) Swearing isn’t just a boy’s club in this equally boisterous second part. And Harry, you might say, isn’t the only one who’s coronated: I think the aptly named whore, Doll Tearsheet, takes the crown for “foul-mouthedest rogue” (<em>2H4</em>&nbsp;2.4.61).</p>
<p>In one scene, a drunken Doll Tearsheet inveighs against the “swaggering” Pistol (2.4.60), who, in a double entendre that really sticks, wants to “discharge upon her” (2.4.97). She variously castigates him as a “scurvy companion”; a “poor, base, rascally, cheating lack-linen mate”; a “mouldy rogue”; a “cutpurse rascal”: a “filthy bung”; a “saucy cuttle”; a “bottle-ale rascal”; and a “basket-hilt stale juggler” (2.4.103-110).</p>
<p>The Norton editors again come to our aid for Doll Tearsheet’s last insult, “basket-hilt stale juggler”: Basically, she is calling Pistol a fraud who wields a piece-of-shit sword. And, yes, her “bung”<em>&nbsp;</em>should evoke&nbsp;<em>bunghole</em>, a slang term for the “asshole.” Originally, a <em>bunghole</em>, sometimes just called the&nbsp;<em>bung</em>, referred to the, well, asshole-like hole in a cask. Note also Shakespeare’s usage of some wonderful&nbsp;<a href="http://www.encyclopediabriannica.com/?p=57">cutthroat compounds</a>: a “lack-linen mate” has no clothes and a “cutpurse rascal” is a thief.</p>
<p>Other characters, including Falstaff and Harry, certainly help gild Doll Tearsheet’s curse-y crown throughout the play, but Falstaff’s page embeds a Falstaff-size gemstone in it when he badmouths the loose-lipped Mistress Quickly, the tavern hostess: “Away, you scullion, you rampallian, you fustilarian! I’ll tickle your catastrophe!” (2.1.52-53). In other words, the page is threatening to whip this fat, slovenly, roguish kitchen wench’s ass. The&nbsp;<em>Oxford English Dictionary&nbsp;</em>suggests this&nbsp;<em>fustilarian</em>, the only quotation the dictionary has for it, is a nonce word formed on&nbsp;<em>fustilugs</em>, a “fat, frowzy woman.” But don’t worry about Mistress Quickly: She knows how to hold her own.</p>
<p>Four hundred years later, Shakespeare’s “rascal” and “rogue” may have lost much of their offensive power. “‘Sblood” may not cause any gasps. We need a dictionary to gloss “neat” and “cuttle<em>.”&nbsp;</em>We need a historian to understand “basket-hilt stale juggler”<em>&nbsp;</em>and “Manningtree ox.” And “saucy” and “scurvy” today might sound like an American trying to sound British.</p>
<p>But the vivid imagery of a “stuffed cloak-bag of guts,” the lexical oddity of “fustilarian,” and the descriptive accretion of “poor, base, rascally, cheating lack-linen mate” display not only the Bard’s linguistic ingenuity but also the sheer joy he takes in lowest of language. Four hundred years later, that exuberance, as fat as Falstaff’s kidneys and stiff as a bull’s pizzle, can still tickle our catastrophes. I’d say that’s definitely something to celebrate.</p>Mon, 02 May 2016 18:11:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/02/crude_language_in_shakespeare_s_henry_iv_part_1_and_part_2.htmlJohn Kelly2016-05-02T18:11:00ZLifeCelebrating the Bard’s Crudest Moments241160502001shakespearelanguageswearingJohn KellyLexicon ValleyLexicon Valleyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/05/02/crude_language_in_shakespeare_s_henry_iv_part_1_and_part_2.htmlfalsefalsefalseCelebrating the Bard's crudest moments:A nod to the "whoreson caterpillars" and "bacon-fed knaves."Folger Shakespeare Library Digital Image CollectionShakespeare's Falstaff is one of his crudest characters.&nbsp;